This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized
by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the
information in books and make it universally accessible.
Google books
https://books.google.com
| Che University of Chicago
Vibraries
init fi ilk eolysta
i
AN ies HUHNE seitUUA aa
=,
Digitized by Google
ESSAYS
ON THE WAR AND OTHER SUBJECTS
BY
M. A.
)
to
KU HUNG-MING
PEKING, 1917.
Quare fremuerant Gentes et —
Populi meditati sunt inania. ps. 1 1
553449
Preface.
“At present wise men for the most part are silent and good
men, powerless, while the senseless vociferate and the heartless
govern; while all social law and providence are dissolved by the
enraged agitation of a multitude among whom every villain has
a chance of power, every simpleton of praise and every scoundrel,
of fortune.” Thus Ruskin wrote now exactly thirty years ago.
Now in a world where the senseless vociferate and the
heartless govern, what chance is there of any words of mine
having any influence among men to-day? But personal friends
and pupils of mine. have often asked me for copies of the articles
which I have at different times written in the newspapers. I
have therefore collected together these fugitive writings of mine
and now publish them here in a book form.
Plato in ancient Greece, speaking of the anarchic world in
which he was then living said: “There is but a very small
remnant of honest followers of wisdom, and they who are of
these tew and who have tasted how sweet and blessed a possession
is wisdom and who can fully see, moreover, the madness of the
multitude and that there is no one, we inay say, whose action in
public matters is sound, and no ally for whosoever would help
the just,—what are they to do?”
“They may be compared,” Plato went on further to say
“to a man who has fallen among wild beasts; he will not be one
of them, but he is too unaided to make head against them: and
before he can do any good to society or his friends, he will be
overwhelmed and perish uselessly. When he considers this, he will
resolve to keep still and to mind his own business; as it were
standing aside under a wall in a storm of dust and hurricane of
driving wind; and he will endure to behold the rest filled with
iniquity, if only he himself may live clear of injustice and impiety,
and depart, when his time comes, in mild and gracious mood, with
fair hope.”
Ku HuNG-MING.
Peking, 28th August, 1917.
14466—
VOX CLAMANTIS
——__——_ §-—___—___——-
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND
THE WAR.
whence come wars and fightings among you?”
One feels curious to know if such a question
is now put to them, what answer the Christian Churches
and the Ministers of the Christian Churches in Europe
would give. Some days ago there was reproduced in the
columns of this paper * the Declaration of the British
theologians on the causes of the war; and comparing it
with the letter written by a great German theologian,
Professor Harnack, in reply to the same, one finds the
answer of these Ministers of the Christian Churches in
Europe interesting and not a little perplexing. ‘lhe British
theologians in their declaration throw the blame for the war
entirely on Germany, accusing her of a breach of neutrality
and of the laws of nations. The German theologian in
his reply accuses Great Britain of being a traitor to civiliz-
ation. ‘The Apostle James in the same chapter of his
epistle, says “Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He
that speaketh evil of his brother and judgeth his brother,
speaketh evil of the law and judgeth the law; but if thou
Judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a
judge.” Now these British and German Ministers of the
Christian Churches constitute themselves as judges and,
N the general epistle of James, Ch. iv. 1, the
> Christian Apostle asks the question “From
* This article was published in the “Peking Gazette” in
November 1914.
2 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND THE WAR.
SD
as judges, they unreservedly condemn each the country
opposed in arms against their own country. The spectacle
of these Ministers of the Gospel of peace and servants
of the Prince of peace, instead of preaching mutual
forbearance and trying by words of meekness to allay and
put down the lusts and passions aroused by this awful
_ war, indulging in mutual recrimination each for their own
nation, is certainly not an edifying spectacle to the
non-Christian world.
In the Confucian Catechism called the “Higher
Education” (translated by Dr. Legge as the Great Learn-
ing) it is said: “In Nature there is cause and effect;
in human affairs there are springs of actions and con-
sequences. When you know that you must first deal
with .ne causes and springs of actions before you can
deal with their effects and consequences, then you are
not far from the Truth. If the springs of actions are
in disorder, it is impossible for their effects and con-
sequences to be well-ordered”. Now what is the real
cause—the springs of actions which have given rise to
the present war? The British theologians, as we have
seen, say that the cause is Germany’s breach of inter-
national good faith; and the British press assert that it
is Prussian militarism. The German theologians and —
newspapers reply that it is British perfidy and Russian
national aggressiveness. But if one goes deep enough
into the matter, into the springs of actions in human
affairs, one cannot help seeing that the real cause of
this war is not that given either by the British or
German theologians and newspapers. The Christian
Apostle, whom we have quoted, says: ‘From whence come
wars and fightings among you? Come they not hence
even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust
and have not: ye kill and desire to have, and cannot
obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not. Do you
think that the scripture saith in vain: The spirit that
dwelleth in us lusteth to envy.”
In fact the real cause of the present war now
going on in HKurope, if one goes deep enough into the
springs of actions in human affairs, is the lusts, the
human passions in the peoples of Europe getting out of
control. The cause of the war is the spirit that dwelleth
in us, the spirit thai lusteth to envy; the spirit that
makes us unable to see others better off than ourselves,
unable to see other nations stronger, richer and mot
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND THE WAR. 3
a
prosperous than our own.* In other words the real cause
of the war is the awful state of the spiritual condition
of the population in Europe to-day. But now who are
‘responsible for the spiritual condition of the peoples of
Europe? ‘The Christian Churches are, officially at least,
responsible for it. One therefore would like to ask the
Christian Churches and their Ministers what have they
to say for themselves in the presence of this awful state
of things now going on in Burope.
Many people are now inclined to think that Christianity
is a failure. We are not quite of that opinion. But if
Christianity is not a failure, yet, it seems, judging from
the spiritual condition of Europe to-day, the Christian
Churches in the world to-day are certainly failures. Indeed,
Tolstoi went so far as to say that in order to save
Christianity, it was necessary to destroy the Christian
Churches. We cannot here go into the question why
and wherefore the Christian Churches to-day have become
failures. But this is what Froude had to say on the
Christian Churches in modern England: ‘Many a hundred
sermons have I heard in England, many a dissertation
on the mysteries of the faith, on the divine mission of
the clergy, on apostolic succession, on bishops and Justifi-
cation and the theory of good words, and verbal inspiration
and the efficacy of sacraments; but never one that I
can recollect on common honesty, on those primitive
commandments, ‘Thou shalt not he’ and ‘Thou shalt
not steal’ ”’. : ;
It is of course not within the province of a modern
newspaper to teach religion. But to-day we will go out
of our way and make no apology for reproducing here
from the Book of the Christian Religion, the following
words which, we believe, will have a meaning for manv
of our foreign readers who have come to this land “to
buy and sell and get gain”. The words are from the same
Christian Apostle whom we have already quoted and these are
the words: ‘There is one lawgiver who is able to save
and to destroy: who are thou that judgeth another? Go to
now, ye that say, to-day or to-morrow we will go into
such a city and continue there a year, and buy and sell
and get gain. Whereas ye know not what shall be on
* Ruskin says: ‘The first reason for all wars, and for the
necessity of national defences in Europe to-day, is that the ma-
jority of persons, high and low, in all European countries, are
thieves, and, in their hearts, greedy of their neighbours’ goods.
land, and fame.” |
4 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND THE WAR.
the morrow? For what is your life? It is even a little vapour
that appeareth for a little time and then vanisheth away.
For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live
and do this, or that. But ye rejoice in your boastings:
all such rejoicing is evil. Therefore to him that knoweth
to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”
We have ventured to say that the Christian Churches
to-day seem to us to be failures. ‘he reason why we
have said this is because the Christian Churches and their
Ministers at this moment do not seem to know in the
least what Christianity really is. We suggest that if they
did, they would not at a time like this bother themselves
about the neutrality of Belgium or speak of taking their
stand upon international good faith or of British perfidy
or of Russian aggression, but would concentrate their
attention, and try their utmost to teach their respective
flocks, those who look to them for guidance, the real
heart of their religion. Now what is real Christianity at
a time like this? “Pure religion,” says the Apostle James,
“and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To
visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction and to
keep oneself unspotted from the world.’ This, we will
venture here to call the attention of the Christian Churches,
is Christianity according to our conception of it; this is
positive and real Christianity; this is what the Christian
Apostle meant by “to do good”. ‘Therefore to him that
knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
A Christian Church which does not know this or knowing
this, doeth it not, is not a Christian Church.
MopDERN EDUCATION AND THE WAR. 5
MODERN EDUCATION AND
THE WAR.
Writing on the Christian Churches and. the war the
other day, we said that the real cause of the present war
in Europe is traceable to the awful state of the spiritual
condition of the peoples of Europe. And this again, we
said, ‘because the Christian Churches in Europe which are
officially responsible for the spiritual condition of the people,
have been failures.
The one principal reason why the Christian Churches
appear to have failed in their work is, as Froude complains,
that they teach what the people do not want and do not
teach what the people want. Now what do the Christian
Churches teach? They teach theology; they teach dogma,
which is called religion. But what do the people want?
They want education. In consequence, there has been a
need for some institution which will give what the Christian
Churches do not appear to give—education; and out of
this need there has arisen in modern Europe the institution
called the school—the school with its modern education.
Thus it has come about that there is now in all Christian
countries in Europe and America a distinction, a divorce
between the Church and the school, and, between religion
and education; and this distinction, this unnatural divorce
between religion and education is, in truth, the source of
the anarchy in the spiritual condition of the people of
Europe to-day.
In China, we may as well point it out here as one
of the remarkable characteristics of Chinese civilization,
education ts religion and religion is education. The same
word Chiao meaning instruction, education, is also the
word for religion. In other words, in China, the school is
the Church and the Church is the school. But in Europe,
as we have said, religion is reiigion and education is
education; the church is the church and the school is the
school. In fact there is nothing more remarkable, as
showing the unnatural divorce between education and
religion, than the law which, we believe exists. in Great
Britain to-day, prohibiting even the reading of the Christian
6 Mopérn EpucatioN AND THE WAR.
Bible in State-supported schools. In France, things have
gone even further. The State in France not only forbids
the teaching of the Christian religion in the public schools.
but the State has even made a new religion called “morality”
for the special use of these schools.
Thus we see that although the Christian churches
. are still officially responsible for the spiritual condition
of the people, the school in almost all European countries
have really taken over that responsibility. But if the
Christian Churches, which are now officially and nominally
responsible, are to be blamed for the awful state of the
spiritual condition of the people of Europe as we see it
in this war—not only in the horrors on the actual battle-
field, but also in the atrocities of the public press,—if the
Christian Churches are to be blamed for this, what shall
we say of the school, of the modern school, of the
modern education of Europe to-day?
Ruskin says, “Zhe only result of the general run of
modern education 1s to make a man think wrong on
every possible subject important to him in ltfe.” Now
is this true? Let us here examine and see. Let us take
the subject of war. What has modern education to say
on war? Does modern education teach that war is a
serious,—an awful thing? No. All modern schools, we
believe, teach that war is a grand, a glorious thing. Well,
then, war and fighting for what? For right? For honour?
No, modern education says: “War for interests.””* Then
again, war and fighting for whom? “War and fighting for
one’s own country,” says modern education. But even if
one’s country is in the wrong? “Yes,” so answers modern
education, “right or wrong hurrah! for my country”. Indeed
we believe that, according to the teaching of modern
education, if our country should ever get into war with the
Almighty himself, it would be our duty to fight Him!**
Now this word “patriotism” brings us to the religion
taught in modern schools, the Religion of Patriotism,
which has superseded Christianity in many European coun-
tries. And what has the modern school, modern education
to say on patriotism? Does modern education teach that
patriotism means doing one’s duties as a true citizen of
a true State; to be loyal to his King or Emperor; to be
* Read Sir Edward—now Viscount Grey’s speech in the
beginning of the war.
** Read modern Japanese school text books on Patriotism
_ and you will find what is said, literally true.
MODERN EDUCATION AND THE WAR. qT
law abiding; to live soberly and within one’s means; to
pay one’s debts; to be a dutiful son to one’s parents; to
live a pure life; to marry early and rear up a tamily
which according to the good parson in Goldsmith’
“Vicar of Wakefield” is the first duty of patriotism; t
be a good husband; to be a kind father; to take a
interest in, and to care for one’s relatives; to be trust-
worthy to friends and helpful to them when they are ini
need. Does patriotism according to modern education.
mean all this? No! Modern eduction teaches that patriotism,
to quote the words of John Bright, means “to take a
commendable interest in politics:” in fact, patriotism
means merely the assertion of one’s right to vote, to
have a say in the government of one’s country. Modern
education teaches that, when a man is in a foreign
country, patriotism means, instead of upholding the hon-
our and good name of his country by his character,
honesty, and good manners, to obtain—honestly if he
can—but in any case to obtain, to grab for substantial
advantages, for commerical and other privileges for his own
nation. Finally, modern education teaches that patriotism
means waving of flags and going in procession with red —
Janterns on every possible occasion; in fact, patriotism
means the hoisting of one’s nation’s flag, whereever a
man goes. In short, according to modern education,
patriotism means to hoist flags, to shout for and glorify
one’s own nation. The Christian Catechism says: “The
chief end of man is to glorify God.” But the catechism of
the new Religion of Patriotism in modern schools, which has
replaced Christianity and other old systems of religion, says:
“The Chief end of man is, for the Englishman to glorify
the British Empire, for the Germans to glorify the German
Empire, for the Japanese to glorify the Japanese Empire,
and now for the modern Chinese to glorify the glorious
Chinese Republic.” |
Some people may say that the above is an over-
charged picture or travesty of modern education. But,
to speak soberly, we believe no one can deny that, more
than anything else, the wrong thinking on these two
‘ subjects “war” and “patriotism” taught by modern
education in schools, the wrong over-emphasis laid on
what has been called “martial spirit” and on “patriotism”,
have helped very largely to bring on the terrible war
now going on in Hurope. Prussian militarism is being
denounced as a peril to the world. But is not the move-
ment called Baden-Powel’s Boy Scouts also militarism?
8 DEMOCRARY AND THE WAR.
ed
Prussian militarism is at least a serious militarism, where-
as this Boy Scout Movement with its war-whoop is, we
must confess, pure extravagant Jingoism. An old Chinese
proverb says, “playing with militarism is like playing
with fire; if you don’t take great care, you will surely
burn yourself up.” Thus even schoool-boys have been
taught to play with fire, and yet people are now astonished
that all Europe is ablaze with fire,—with war. Christ in his
forcible way said: ‘All they that take the sword shall
perish with the sword.” But the patriots will say to us:
“Nay, but we have had to teach even our boys to play
at, soldiers in order to prepare ourselves against. aggress-
ion.” Now we will not answer for ourselves, but will let
Confucius answer for us. Confucius said to a4 disciple
who was making excuses for a war which he was pre-
paring against a neighbouring state which was hostile
and becoming a danger to the state in which he was
Prime Minister: “When the people of a foreign nation
are dissatisfied and have hostile feelings towards you,
then you should cultivate the civil, the gentle virtues,—
l.e., virtues of good manners and refinement, in order to
attract them,—in fact raise the standard of the moral
education of your own people (“Discourses and Sayings”
XVI, II). To foreigners who ask what is the difference
between the teaching of Confucius, the old learning,
and modern education, the new learning, we answer:
“It is this!”
DEMOCRACY AND THE WAR. 9
DEMOCRACY AND THE WAR.
Mencius said, “During the ‘Spring and Autumn’
period, there were no righteous wars” (Mencius Bk. VIL.
Part Il, ch. 2). The Spring and Autumn period in
Chinese History (772-480 B. C.) was an age of great
anarchy and frequent wars in China, as it is now in
Europe. The feudal order of society in China then had
broken down and a new social order with new ideas—a
democratic order of society just as we have in China
to-day, was being formed; but unfortunately at that time,
the idea of a true foundation for such a new society was
not understood. With the loss of the strong feudal habits
of subordination and deference, the idea of kingship,—the
principle of respect for authority as the imperative and
fundamental basis of a State was lost. Confucius, who
lived at the time, said, “Among the barbarous tribes of
the North and the East even, the people still have
kingship and respect for authority; whereas in the
civilized realms of China to-day, kingship and respect
for authority do not exist anywhere.” (Disc. and Sayings
Ill, 5.) Indeed, Confucius in the last days of his life
wrote a book called the “Spring and Autumn Annals”
(which may be compared with Carlyle’s latter pamphlets)
to show that the cause of all the anarchy and_ endless
wars of the time was the loss of the idea of kingship
and respect for authority in ‘the Chinese nation during
that period of Spring and Autumn to which Mencius
referred.
We now see the same state of things in Europe
to-day as it was in China 2500 years ago. ‘he feudal
order of society in Europe has now been broken up and
a new social order with new ideas,—a new democratic
order of society is being formed. But now what does
Democracy mean? To many people in Europe and
America to-day— and, we are sorry to say, since the
coming of the New Learning into this country, also in
China now,— Democracy means, Kinglessness. The Am-
erican says, “Government of the people, for the people
and by the people.” Sir Edward Grey said the other day
10 DEMOCRACY AND THE WAR.
——a
in connection with the present war, the British Govern-
ment would be guided entirely by public opinion. Now
according to the principle above laid down, while on the
one hand the Emperor, King, Chief Magistrate, or Prime
Minister at the head of a nation, who is responsible tor
the good government and the welfare of the nation, is
to take no responsibility whatever for guiding and lead-
ing the nation the way it should go, but has merely to
follow blindly the will of the people called public op-
inion,—the people themselves on the other hand are to
decide not only how they are to be governed, but, when
necessary, also what is a righteous war and what is not
a righteous war and when and against whom the nation
is to make war. Now leaving out the question of good
government, one may ask here: Can the people, the
mass of the people in a nation judge rightly what is a
righteous and what is not a righteous war? A righteous
war is a war for right, for righteousness or, as every-
body now says, for civilization. ‘Therefore in order to
. know whether a war is righteous, or unrighteous, it is
necessary to know what is civilizationn—what is true
and what is false civilization. Now, how much do or >
can the people, the mass of the people in a nation know
about real civilization? The Chancellor of the Exchequer *)
in Great Britain has been lately telling the people of
England in connection with the present war, something
about a rabbit and a hedge-hog. There is no doubt that
the people, even the mass of the people in England
know something about a rabbit, know the difference
between a rabbit and a hédge-hog. But civilization ?
True civilization ? When people talk about civilization,
they should remember that civilization is not only a big
word, but a big thing—a very big subject.
It may, however, be urged that although the people,
the mass of a people in a nation do not know much
about civilization, yet they can choose and elect the right
people who know about such things, to tell them what
civilization is. But the question here again is: Can the
people, the mass of the people in a nation, recognize the
right persons who really know about civilization and elect
these persons to tell them what civilization is? Now let
us hear what Lord Bacon_has to say on this subject.
*) Mr. Loyd-George, now the Prime Minister in Great Britain.
In one of his speeches he said that the German Emperor thought
Belgium was a rabbit, but it turned out to be a hedge-hog.
DEMOCRACY AND THE WAR. Il
Lord Bacon says, ‘Praise is the reflection of virtue, but
it is as the glass, or body which giveth the reflection.
If it be from the common people, it is commonly false
and nought, and rather followeth vain persons than
virtuous, for the common people understand not many
excellent virtues; the lowest virtues draw praise from them,
the middle virtues work in them astonishment, but of the
highest virtues they have no sense or perception at all,
but shows species virtutibus similes (appearances resemb-
ling virtues) serve best with them.” Thus, if what Lord
Bacon says here is true, when the people, the mass of
the people in a nation, if they want to know what
civilization is, have to choose the persons who are to tell
them that,—the probability or even the certainty is that,
instead of choosing the right persons, the men who really
know something about civilization, the people will choose
the clever men, men with the “appearances resembling
virtues,” glib tongued men who can talk cleverly to them,
for instance, about a rabbit and a hedge-hog.
But it may still be argued that the majority of the
people in a nation may surely be trusted to choose the
right persons to tell them what civilization is. Now it
seems to us that when you depend upon the majority in
a nation to choose the right men, the chance of choos-
ing aright becomes still more hopeless. In the New Tes-
tament it is said, “Many are called, but few are chosen.”
Plato and the wise men: in ancient Greece all say,
“The majority is always bad’. Indeed in China, in an-
cient times, Kings when speaking of themselves instead
of saying “I’ or “We”, said Kua-jen, “Our Minority”.
Thus in all countries and in all times, if a man wants to
know not merely what bread and butter, what his petty
personal interests mean, but what truth, what righteous-
ness, what honour, what civilization means—he must
leave the crowd, the majority, he must not be afraid of
being in the minority—even, if need be, in a minority of
one by himself. Indeed only the man who has the
courage to be in a minority of one by himself, the
Chinese call a Chun-tzu, a gentleman, literally the kingly
man, who thus can speak of himself, lke the Kings in
ancient China, as Kua-jen—QOur minority.
In other words what we want to say here is that
the people, the mass of the people, especially the ma-
jority of the people in a nation can never judge rightly
what is truth and what is falsehood, what is honour and
what is dishonour, what is righteousness and what is not
{2 eanten eare
12 DEMOCRACY AND THE WAR.
righteousness—in fact, what is civilization and what is not
civilization. On the countrary, when the question of
truth and falsehood, of honour and dishonour, of right-
eousness and unrighteousness, and of true and _ false
civilization, when such grave and important questions are
left to the decision of the mass of the people, of the
majority of the people in a nation, the decision will
always be a wrong one and a war arising from such a
decision will always be an unrighteous war. |
But now to sum up and conclude. Writing on
“Modern Education and the War” the other day, we
said that the wrong thinking, as Ruskin calls it, or
wrong ideas, taught in modern schools, of the two
words “war” and ‘patriotism’? have, more than any-
thing else, helped to bring on the present war in Europe
Now what we want further to point out here is that
the wrong conception which the people of Europe and
America to-day have of the word “Democracy”, is not
only the root of all the anarchy, social, political and
international anarchy in modern times, but it is also the
immediate cause of the present war. Democracy in its
true sense negatively means: No privilege. Democracy
in its true sense positively means: Equal opportunity for
all, or, as the great Great Napoleon said, ‘‘carriére ouverte
aux talents.” In fact, democracy means Open Door.
regardless of birth, rank or race. This is the essence of
democracy and nothing more. But to many people now,
as we said in the beginning of this article, democracy
means Kinglessness: t.e. to say, as the French writer
Alphonse Karr puts it, “in the school the pupils should
teach the teacher; in the army, the soldiers should
command the general; and in the streets, the horses should
drive the couchman (les cheveauz doivent mener le cocher.)’’
Now it is this wrong conception of democracy as
Kinglessness which, while on the one hand, it has made
the majority of men in modern times disbelieve not only
in a Kingly rule, but also in Kingliness, in human
worth in man,—on the other hand, this wrong conception
of democracy it is, which has made responsible statesmen
in all the nations of Europe to-day throw up the reins
altogether over the mob; made them either follow blindly
the will of the mob,—the modern mob with their wrong
perverted ideas of patriotism which they get from modern
education; or, what is still worse. pander to these perver-
ted ideas and passions of the mob. In fact, it is this
what Carlyle calls the Jesuttism the combination of cunning
DEMOCRACY AND THE WAR 13
and cowardice in the modern public men, the Jesuitism of
statesmen and responsible public men in all European
countries to-day who, while they talk of peace and civiliza-
tion, pander to the passions of the mob, and the combination
of vanity and violence of the lower classes, the anarchism
of the mis-educated modern mob who, while they know
and care nothing for the true duties of a citizen, prate of
patriotism; it is this Jesuitism of the responsible public
men and the Anarchism of the irresponsible mob in
Europe to-day which have brought about the most
unrighteous, most immoral, senseless, terrible war which —
the world has ever seen,—the war now going on in
Europe. It was against this Jesuitism and Anarchism.
. the product of false democracy, that Carlyle in modern
times in Europe wrote his .Latter Day Pamphlets and
Confucius in ancient times in China, wrote his Spring
and Autumn Annals. Mencius said, ‘“‘When Confucius
completed his Spring and Autumn Annals, the Jesuits
and Anarchists became ofraid.” FLFR KT BL KF
(Mencius B, III, Part IJ, ch. IX, 11.) *)
*) In my book “Papers from a Viceroys Yamen”, | said:
“The real Anarchy of the world to-day is not in China—although
the Chinese are suffering from its effects—but in Europe and
America. The sign or test of Anarchy is not whether there is
more of less disorder or mal-administration in a country. The
real test is this. The word Anarchy in Greek literally means
“Kinglessness.” There are three stages or degrees of Anarchy.
The first is when there is no real capable true King in a country.
The second stage is when the people of a country openly or
tacitly do not believe in a kingly rule. ‘The third and worst stage
is reached when the people of a country do not only disbelieve
in a kingly rule, but even in kingliness—in fact, become incapable
of recognising kingliness or human worth in man at all. It seems
to me that Europe and America are fast nearing this last and
worst stage of Anarchy. Goethe in the beginning of the last
century said in verse:
Frankreich’s traurig Geschick, die Grossen mdgen’s bedenken;
Aber bedenken ftirwahr sollen es Kleine noch mehr.
Grosse gingen zu Grunde; doch wer beschiitzte die .Menge
Gegen die Menge? Da war Menge der Menge Tyrann.
In English:
Dreadful is France’s misfortune, the “classes” should truly bethink them;
But still more, of a truth, the “Masses” should lay it to heart.
“Classes” were smashed up; well, then, who will protect now the
- “Masses”.
Gainst the “Masses?” ‘The “Masses” gaint the “Masses” did rage.
14 MODERN NEWSPAPERS AND THE WAR.
MODERN NEWSPAPERS AND
THE WAR.
Goethe, when he was pressed hard about the im-
morality of Lord Byron’s poems, said that, after all, they
were not so immoral as the newspapers. We wonder if
people to-day realize how immoral modern newspapers -
are. .In order to know how immoral modern newspapers
are, we must understand what the words “to be immoral”
really mean. To many people, to be immoral means to
drink whiskey, and smoke cigarettes or opium; to have. —
irregular relations with the other sex. But to Goethe,
to be immoral means more than that; immorality means
something deeper than that. To Goethe immorality
means selfishness and vulgarity; to be immoral means to
be selfishly vulgar. Confucius said, “A gentleman is broad
and never biassed. The vulgar person is narrow and
always biassed.” The Chinese words which we have
translated as the vulgar person, means literally “a smiall
man,” translated by Dr. Legge as the mean man and by
the late Sir Chaluner Alabaster as—the cad. Now one
of the smallest men. one of the most itumoral characters
in Chinese history, Wu San-ssu, nephew of the notorious
Empress Wu of the Tang dynasty (A.D. 654), said, “I do
not know what is a good man and what is a bad man.
To me a man who is for me, for my interests, is a good
man and a man who is against me, against my interests,
is a bad man.” ‘This is what Goethe meant by immoral-
ity when he spoke of the immorality of the newspapers.
According to Goethe and Confucius, to be narrow and
biassed, to be vulgarly selfish, is to be a small man, a
mean man,—a cad; and to be a cad, is be immoral, more
immoral],—worse than to drink whiskey and smoke cigaret-
tes or opium; more immoral,— worse than even to have
irregular relations with the other sex.
Indeed it is only when one understands what im-
morality really means that one realizes, as Goethe did,
how immoral modern newspapers are. We do not here
speak of disreputable prints, such as one sees even here
MopERN NEWSPAPERS AND THE WaArR. 15
in China, * which are either the sychophant paid mouth-
piece of some great Magnate, clique or corporation or
stupid vulgar rags, which live solely by scandalmong-
ering sensation and by pandering to the passions of the
mob. But let us take such a high class paper even as
the London Zimes—at one time and even now a world-
famous newspaper. When the Germans in 1897 forcibly
occupied Kiaochow, the London Times, in a_ leading
article then said: “Well done! Germany; that is the
only way to deal with the Chinese.’”’” We remember
distinctly that was the gist of the Times leading article
telegraphed out here. But now in 1914 when Germany
is at war with Great Britain, and Great Britain’s Ally,
Japan, undertakes a campaign against Tsingtau, what
does the London Times say? The London Times now
says, “Well done, Japan! Japan is perfectly right in
taking her revenge and driving out those international
thieves and robbers out of China.’ Now can any one
conceive of anything more immoral than this intellectual
somersault?
Now in order to understand how such a_ highly
respectable paper such as the London 7Zitmes can be so
immoral, one has to- know the class and calibre of the
men who are now generally employed in modern journal-
ism. Carlyle, speaking of modern literature, says, “A
crowded portal this of Literature. The haven of expatri-
ated spiritualism and also of expatriated vanities, prurient
imbecilities: The immortal gods are there (quite irre-
cognisable under these disguises) and also the lowest
broken varlets; an extremely miscellaneous regiment; 1n
fact, more a canaille than a regiment.” What Carlyle
‘says here of modern Literature, applies also and_ still
more aptly to modern journalism.
But if the above is the state of Journalism and
newspapers in Goethe and Carlyle’s time, it is now much
worse. There is now, besides bias, narrowness and vul-
garityv, another element in Journalism, which in Goethe
and Carlyle’s time, was not in it, viz. commercialism.
At one time Journalism was a profession, but now it 1s
pure commercialism. If there were at one time broken
varlets in Journalism, there were then in it, as Carlyle
* At the time when the “Lusitania” was sunk, I said. ‘It
‘was dreadful of the Germans to sink such a fine ship and cause
the death of so many people; but the British newspapers in
Tientsin have done something worse,—they have sunk the prestige,
the honour of Englishmen in China. :
es
16 MopDERN NEWSPAPERS AND THE WAR.
truly says, also expatriated real spiritualism, nay, even
immortal gods. Of these immortal gods in Journalism at
one time, we need here mention only three names, John
Milton, Jonathan. Swift and the unknown writer, who
called himself Junius. But now since Journalism has
become commercialism, there are now left in Journalism,—
as far as one can see, judging from the atrocities which
have filled the public press since the present war began,—
left for the most part only, as Carlyle would say, the ©
lowest broken varlets whose patriotic vapourings and
attitudinisings, which they have the assurance to call
convictions, are valued and can be had at so many
dollars and cents! Indeed one of the worst ‘signs, it
seems to us, of the terrible condition of modern society,
of modern civilization in Europe and America to-day, is
not even the gross materialism, the heartless extravagance
and hardened cynicism one sees in the modern V’homme
sensuel moyen: the worst sign is that commercialism has
entered into every department, even the holiest and most
sacred part of spiritual life. Science, art, literature and
philosophy are now hawked about and promoted by
methods which even company promoters would be ashamed
to use, and the cause of education, -nay, of religion itself,
is advertised in the same way as quack doctors advertise
their medicines with flaming electric lighted vulgar
advertising signboards.
Now what makes this question of modern news-
papers so serious a question is that, the newspaper
to-day is the Church of the new era, the Church of the
new modern Democratic society in Europe and America.
In fact the modern newspaper—whatever one may
say against it, is really the new modern Church which
has now superseded and taken the place of the Christian
church. It is the new Church of the new social order,
the modern Democratic society, which, in our article on
Democracy and the War the other day we said, is now
being formed in Europe and America. The religion of
this Church one may call by one word—‘“Liberalism”’.
Just in the same way as Christianity broke up and dest-
royed the ancient Roman socicety, and set up a new
society,—the mediaeval Christian society of Europe,—so
the new religion of the modern era, “Liberalism,” has
destroyed the mediaeval Christian society and is now
trying to build up a new society—the modern Democratic
society. After Christianity had destroyed the ancient
Roman society, the Christian church became the new
a ae
MODERN NEWSPAPERS AND THE WAR. we
church of a new society—the mediaeval Christian society
of Europe. In the same manner after the modern religion
“Liberalism” has now destroyed the mediaeval Christian
society, the Newspaper now is the new Church of a new
societv,—the modern Democratic society. This new
Church of the modern era, the Newspaper, has now taken
over completely the true function of the Christian church,—
the function of looking after the moral and spiritual
condition of the grown-up adult population in Europe and
America. The Christian church, on the other hand, the
Christian church in all Christian countries to-day. has
become, like the Taoist temples and Buddhist lamaseries
in China, a mere aesthetic ornament.
Now during the middle age \yhen the mediaeval
Christian church was a true, a moral church, and Christian
priesthood was synonymous with piety, there were peace
and order in all mediaeval Europe. But later on when
the mediaeval Christian church ceased to be a true, a
moral church; when that church failed to understand
the very religion, the religion of renunciation, poverty,
piety and purity which it professed to teach; in fact
when the mediaeval Christian church became so effete
and corrupt that the Head of the church, the Pope,
actually sold forgiveness of sins for money and thus the’
word Christian priesthood became synonymous with Simony,
the mediaeval equivalent for commercialism, then a ter-
rible war broke out in all Kurope which, as we all know,
lasted for thirty years. It took the Germanic nations
thirty years to put down this commercialism in the
mediaeval Christian church. This thirty years war is now
called the War of Reformation,—the reformation of the
mediaeval Christian church.; The present war now going
on in Europe, we think--will also in future history be
called the War of the Reformation, —the reformatien of
the new modern Church, the Church of the new era,-—
the Newspaper. Until this modern Church, the modern
- Newspaper or Journalism is reformed, there will be no
peace, no order, no civilization possible in Europe; for
this modern ‘Church, the Newspaper, like the latter day
mediaeval Christian Church, now not only does not un-
derstand the very religion which it professes to teach,
viz., Liberalism and true Democracy, but it has degen-
erated and become commercialism. What Christ said of
the old Jewish church, one may say of the new modern
Church to-day, the Newspaper, “My house is a house of
prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves.” Indeed
a
18 MoDERN NEWSPAPERS AND THE WAR.
o the editors of English newspapers in China and to the
hristian Missionaries teaching not Christ, but New
Learning in China, who have helped to produce the new
horror of civilisation, the modern Chinaman of the present
Revolution in China, one is almost tempted to address
the words of Christ: “Woe unto you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to
make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him
twofold more the child of hell than yourselves!”
JAPAN’S JUSTIFICATION. 19
JAPAN’S JUSTIFICATION.
(A letter addressed to the Editor of the
“P and T. Times.’’)
Dear Sir,—I have read with great interest a Japanese
Resident’s letter in your columns of the 20th instant
giving the .justification for the decision of responsible
statesmen in Japan to join in the action against what
may be called the “Sedan” of German Kolonial Politik,
and European Imperialism generally in East Asia.
Will you allow me to say that this Justification given
by your correspondent is the only one argument I have
heard which seems at any rate fair and reasonable in
defence of what, on the face of it, looks very like an
outrage against the Rule or Religion of Play the Game—
this action of Japan in joining in a little bit of a side
scene of the great European war in this part of the world.
I say outrage because every Japanese, [ think, must
know the common Chinese expression Sheng Chih Pu
Wu in Japanese Katte mo era ku nai, (“Even victory will
tarnish your prowess’), which is applicable to the terrible
campaigu we are now going to see against the handful
of German clerks in Tsingtau.
To show you that I fully appreciate your correspond-
ent’s argument, I will here give you an instance in
European history of a situation in which an action such
as that which Japan is now taking, is not only right and
justifiable, but even necessary and absolutely called for.
In his Life of the late Emperor William I of Germany,
Mr. Archibald Forbes thus describes the last act, or scene,
in the tragedy of Sedan in France in 1871:
“An hour before the hoisting of the white
flag, it had become apparent to the Prussian King
that his artillery commanded the entire space upon
which the French army stood helplessly pressed
together in confused masses. Reports from all direc-
tions convinced him that he was everywhere in
sufficient strength to defeat any attempt to break
through. Since the French down there were stub-
born, a yet acuter incentive than the argument
20 JAPAN’S JUSTIFICATION.
already applied needed, it seemed, to be administ-
ered. As in old times, in the name of humanity,
people in the last stage of hydrophobia used to be
put out of their agony by: being smothered, so the
final death throe of the French Army was to be
artistically quickened up. To quote the German
official account: ‘A powerful fire of artillery against
the enemy’s last point of refuge appeared under the
circumstances the most suitable means for convincing
him of the hopelessness of the situation and for
inducing him to surrender. With the desire to
hasten the capitulation, the King ordered the whole
available artillery to concentrate its fire upon Sedan.’ ”’
We see from this that in war, merciless rigour and
inexorableness is not inhumanity, but the only true human-
ity, and paradoxical as it may sound, in order to be
merciful it is necessary sometimes in war, to be cruel.
You will remember the terrible words of the American
General Sherman: “In war leave to your enemy nothing
except his eyes to weep with.” ‘A la guerre comme a
la guerre,’ as the French say.
It is therefore not from the point of humanitarianism
or the gospel of turn the other cheek that I am going
to examine the question whether Japan is Justified in her
present action. I want to examine this question from
the point of the law of the gentleman,—the law of true
Bushido. People tell me that Japan is quite right in
taking her revenge upon Germany. But the question
with me is: Is Japan taking her revenge like a gentleman,
like a true Bushi. The question is, in fact: Is Japan
playing the game? The answer to this question it seems
to me, turns upon the point as to whether the situation
in Tsingtau at this moment is analogous to the situation
described by Mr. Forbes in Sedan in 1871. If it is, then
Japan is perfectly justified in her present action. But if
it is not, then I am afraid that this campaign of “revenge’’,
which Japan is undertaking against a handful of German
clerks in Tsingtau, is worse than a crime,—7t is an
incredible, terrible blunder. Your correspondent’s argu-
ment, I understand, simply amounts to this. In her present
action, Japan’s sole motive and object, like that of the
king of Prussia in Sedan, is, by convincing the Germans
of the hopelessness of the situation, to induce them to
surrender without fighting; in fact to bring about or
hasten the capitulation of Tsingtau without unnecessary
-
JAPAN’S JUSTIFICATION. 21
a
bloodshed, and thus stop the horrors of war and the
menace to trade and commerce on the China Coast; in
i word, “to remove all cases of disturbance in the Far
ast.”
: But, will this action of Japan help to hasten and
bring about the capitulation of Tsingtau? Your corre-
spondent evidently believes it will. He says: “Now that
Japan has entered into the arena, the Germans, being well
acquainted with Japan’s war modus operandi, would rather
prefer the wisest way of surrendering the place to a
stronger hand without resisting, so that no bloodshed
may take place in this part.” 1 must confess I do not
quite understand what is meant here by Japan’s war
modus operandi. If your correspondent by that means
the generally admitted moral bravery or Bushido of the
Japanese, then I can only say that I believe a true Bushi —
never speaks of his Bushido or bravery, and the Germans
will never be afraid of Bushis who speak aloud of their
Bushido. But if by Japan’s war modus operandi, your
correspondent means physical brute courage or war whoop,
then I can only say that the war whoop of the Japanese,
terrible though it be, as one hears it in Japanese theatres,
will not, I believe, frighten even the German clerks in
Tsingtau; for a war whoop is a thing which can only
frighten savages and animals and not a civilised nation,
and whatever one may say against German politics and
the methods of German statesmen, nobody can deny that
Germany is a civilised nation and, what is more, an
armed civilised nation. Indeed your Japanese correspond-
ent seems to me to forget that Bushido is not an article
made only in Japan.
Thus we see that the present situation in Tsingtau
is not like the situation in Sedan in 1871. The present
action of Japan will not help to bring about or hasten
the capitulation of the ‘‘Sedan” of Germany in the Far
Hast without unnecessary bloodshed. On the contrary, it
will .have just the very opposite effect. If will make
the German clerks in T'singtau fight with a desperation
which they otherwise would not do, and thus the horrors
of war, instead of being stopped, will be prolonged, or
at least, intensified. As to removing all causes of distur-
bances in the Far East, this unadvised action of Japan—
this great campaign of the great Japanese nation against
a handful of German clerks in Tsingtau—will, | am afraid,
give rise to and create such intensely bitter feelings—
national and racial bitterness everywhere, with the result
22 JAPAN’S JUSTIFICATION.
that there will be no peace, not only in the Far Kast,
and in the whole world, for perhaps a hundred years;
and in the still yet fiercer, bloodier and more terrific wars
which will arise out of these national and racial bitter
feelings, not only the petty commercial and_ trading
interests of the few shopkeepers in Shanghai, which
British and Japanese statesmen make such ado to protect,.
but even the interests of civilisation of all nations in the
world, Japan included, nay,—civilisation itself will be in
danger of being wrecked and destroyed.
I say therefore that the present action of Japan
decided upon by responsible Japanese and British states-. -
men, is worse than a crime; it is an incredible blunder on
the part of these statesmen if they are sincere, as | have
no doubt they are, when they say they want to preserve
peace and remove all causes of disturbance in the Far
Kast. For any one who is capable of thinking with
evenness of temper and calmness of judgement, 1 think,.
must know that if there is anything in this world more
than all other things, which creates and gives rise to
disturbances, quarrels and wars among men, it is bad
feelings. Now, do the responsible Japanese and British.
Statesmen realise how much bitter feeling, bitter national
and racial feeling, this stepping into the arena of Japan
against the handful of German clerks in Tsingtau will
give rise to and create—bitter feelings which will become:
a heritage of hate for generations to the nations and
people upon this Karth?
_ I have called Tsingtau the “Sedan” of the German:
Kolonial Politik and European Imperialism in the Far East.
But I think it right and necessary here to make it plain
that in saying this, I do not mean to imply that the:
present German Emperor and the German people are
alone to be held responsible for the European Imperialism
which has now culminated in this inevitable great Eur-
opean War, a world cataclysm which, [am sure, must be
deplored even by the actual participants. In my humble
opinion, all the people in Europe without exception are
responsible for this European Imperialism, for this EKur-
opean Imperialism is the natural product of nationalism—
misguided, ill balanced, foolish nationalism in all people:
of Europe to-day. Many of my [European friends have
said to me “Your Chinese have no nationalism.” I ans-
wered, “Thank God, we have not.” For what is the
result’ of nationalism? In China here, where we had no
nationalism until the New Learning came, the first result.
JAPAN’S JUSTIFICATION. 23
of talk of nationalism which the New Learning brought
into this country was that even the phlegmatic compradores
in Shanghai instead of living as dutiful sons and good
citizens, as loyal subjects ot the Emperor, these fat phleg-
matic compradores wanted to glorify the pure Chinese
Empire, the consequence of which was a revolution with
many heads broken and many houses burnt, all for nothing;
and the final result of nationalism in China now is that
China has become a Republic with a queueless very fat
man in the gorgeous uniform of a grand Field Marshal
as President of the great Republic of China, who, however,
in spite of all his grand military uniform, dares not say
a word one way or the other, while the honoured guests
of the great Chinese Republic are bullying and cold
bloodedly massacring each other in her house! That is
the result of nationalism in China. The result of
nationalism in the people of Europe, with its product,
Imperialism, we see now not only in the awful slaughter
in Kurope, but also in the pitiful, pitiable tragedy going
on before our eves in Tsingtau—a greater disgrace to the
helplessness of European diplomacy in the Far Kast even
than the tragic Boxer muddle in’ Peking in 1900. In
speaking of the want of common sense and helplessness
of the European diplomats in Peking which brought on
the Boxer Tragedy in 1900, I quoted these words of
Emerson “Governments must always learn too late that
the use of dishonest agents is as ruinous for nations
as for individual men.’
In conclusion will you allow me to quote the following
words which I wrote in an article entitled “Et Nunc Reges,
Intelligite’ which appeared in the “Japan Mail” of
Yokohama, in 1905, during the Russo-Japanese War.
Speaking of the causes which led to that unfortunate war,
I said: | |
‘“‘f wish to say here, that Russia’s unfriendly attitude,
military as well as diplomatic, towards Japan has been
' directly provoked by the Imperial Japanese Government’s
mistaken and misguided policy. Now what was the
provocation? The provocation was the Anglo-Japanese
Alliance. When this alliance was concluded, I said to my
English friends that it was an alliance to break the
peace of the Far East. [ have, of course, not the least
doubt of the dona fide good intentions of both the British
and Japanese nations in concluding this Treaty, but any
one who will look at the matter with evenness of temper
and calmness of judgment, must admit that the direct
24 JAPAN’S JUSTIFICATION.
effect of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was not only to
bring in, but to increase tenfold, into the politics and
international relations of nations having interests in the
Far East two very undesirable moral elements which
work directly against the preservation of peace—two
moral elements, namely, jealousy and suspicion. That is
why I say that the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was an
Alliance to break the peace in the Far Kast. In fact, the
Anglo-Japanese Alliance was an act to break up the
solidarity and sodality of the European nations having
interests in the Far Hast. Therefore any one who will
“ look at the matter with a judicial mind must see that
the British and Japanese statesmen who were responsible
for this Anglo-Japanese Alliance were guilty of a very
reprehensible and almost criminal want of judgment.
In any way, for the Japanese nation this Anglo-
Japanese Alliance is the most disastrous piece of diplo-
macy which responsible Japanese statesmen have done,
since Japan first came in contact with European nations.
_ Without this Anglo-Japanese Alliance, Russia’s military
as well as diplomatic attitude not only towards Japan
and the Japanese in Korea, but even towards China and
the Chinese in Manchuria, would have been quite different.
In fact without this Anglo-Japanese Alliance, the Man-
churian question would have been quite easily settled.
The Japanese nation, if they will only look at the
matter calmly, must see that by concluding this Anglo-
Japanese Alliance, the Japanese nation were announcing
to the world that Japan was going to take a part in
European politics, that Japan was going to take a hand in
the frantic and mad game of ‘“Kolonial Politik,’ which
the European nations, led now not by their kings and
rulers, not by the best men in the nation, but by the
mob; in fact, Japan was going to take a hand in the
mad game of modern politics which European nations are
playing against each other.
There is, of course, nothing in the nature of things
against the Japanese nation taking part in European
politics and thereby becoming a world Power—a truly
great Power exercising Imperialism over the wide world.
There is, I say, nothing in the nature of things against
the Japanese doing all this and more. But I wish to tell
the Japanese nation this: If the Japanese nation listen to
JAPAN’S JUSTIFICATION. 25
their English friends and to the Tokyo professors and try
to become a world Power by taking a hand in the mad
game of European politics, the Japanese nation will be
as sure to attain the object of their ambition as the man,
to use Mencius’ illustration, who climbs up a tree to
catch fish.
- Apologising for the length of this letter, I am, etc.
| KU HUNG MING.
Peking, August 24.
26 Honour or INTERESTS?
HONOUR OR INTERESTS?
The late General Gordon has said: “Grope in the
dark as we must in the Hast, the best course is that
which is just and right.” Now there can, I think, be no
question that in case we Chinese want to adopt any policy.
General Gordon, the Christian knight and true English —
gentleman, is a much better guide for us to follow than
the writer of the “Indiscreet Letters from Peking’. Mr.
Putnam Weale. Therefore in the present great crisis in
the world’s history, grope in the dark as we Chinese must
in the West, the best course for us to take is not to do
what, as Mr. Putnam Weale tells us, is or will be profitable
and advantageous to us, but, in the words of General
Gordon, ‘‘to do that which is just and right.”
Now, is it or will it be right for China, at the present
moment to take any action that is liable to make Germany
and the other Central Powers now fighting in Europe her
enemies? Mr. Putnam Weale says: “If a masculine action
has been taken in Washington, honour demands that
another be taken in Peking’’. This sounds very impressive.
But let us examine what this masculineness and honour
really mean. Remember, Germany and her allies, whether
they are right or wrong, are fighting bravely against over-
whelming odds, in fact against almost the whole civilised
world. Now, it appears to my mind that people who
speak so much of International Law forget that there is
a still higher law namely the “Law of the Gentleman’.
The English man calls it the Law of Playing the Game.—I
remember that when I was in a public school in Scotland,
it was according to this Law of Playing the Game cons-
idered unmanly for anyone to join a crowd to go for a
single bov, even if that single boy was the bully of the
school. Thus what even an English school boy would
consider unmanly, Mr. Putnam Weale calls a masculine
action. -
The action taken by the United States of America
may from the American point of view be necessary, may
even be right, but there is certainly no manliness in it.
Again, people who are trying to teach the Chinese
International Law, do not know that there is in China an
Honour OR INTERESTS ? 27
old piece of real International Law dating from the time
of Confucius, which is more applicable to the present case
than any modern International Law that I know of.—This
old piece of Chinese International Law says: “A nation
going into war must have acasus belli”. *But China has
absolutely no casus belli whatever against Germany. For
China, in the first place, has no concern at all with the
quarrel now going on in Kurope and, having no mercantile
marine worth speaking of, China, is not in any way
affected by Germany’s submarine war. As for upholding
International Law, China, in my opinion, has absolutely
no status, no right whatever to constitute herself judge,
sit as in a court and pass judgment upon Germany; and
those who advise China to do that, it seems to me, do
not understand the meaning of the word “impertinence”’,
for such an action on China’s part would be nothing else
but a piece of gratuitous impertinence.
In fact, the only intelligible and valid reasons, as far
as [I can see, which Mr. Putnam Weale and those who
are advising China to take hostile action against German
can advance, amount simply to this: China should take
such action, because by so doing she may obtain rewards,
or really bribes, from the AHies after the war in the
shape of favours, concessions and a remission of kicks.— I
say remission of kicks, because Mr. Putnam Weale says:
“After the victory of the Alhes (victory, remember, in
a war for the protection of weak nations), every one who
in not found on the side of the victors will be counted as
on the side of the vanquished!”—This argument in simple
language means nothing else than this: You are, for no
reason whatever, to pick a quarrel with a friend and if
necessary fight him, not because you have any grievance
against him, but merely because by so doing, you will
obtain bribes from six or seven man who are attacking
him, or at least you will secure immunity from being
kicked by them after the fight.—And that Mr. Putnam
Weale calls honour! Well, I think even American business
men would at the most call it good business principles,
but every plain honest men would call it the business
principles of a cowardly blackguard.
Confucius says: “A gentleman understands honour,
what is right; a cad understands interests, what will pay.”
To me it seems that in answering the question as to what
she should do in the present ocisis, China must decide
* 4% Ai ot bi
28 Honour OR INTERESTS ?
whether she wants to be a nation of gentlemen or a nation
of cads. The decision, I must. say, is a very momentous
one, for upon this decision will depend not only the future
of China, but the future on the world.—If China listens to
the advice of Mr. Putnam Weale and the crowd of
self-seeking foreigners: tow in China, who are clamouring
and urging her to take hostile action against Germany,
a friendly power against whom she has no “casus belli’,
no grievance whatever, merely in order to obtain bribes
from the Allies after the war,—if China does this, then
she will become a nation of cads; and if China becomes
such a nation, she is doomed.
1 believe it is quite evident that the only protection
which China as a weak military nation, has against
aggression is that the nations who are stronger than her,
should in their dealings with her, place friendship, right
and justice above interests. But how can China expect
other nations to act in that way if she herself, in her
dealings with Germany, ignores these principles? It is true
that by acting now as she is urged to do, China will for
the moment have the Allies on her side. But suppose that
one day circumstances bring it about that one or the other
of the Allied Powers, say Japan, finds it incompatible with
’ her interests to be on the side of China, or even finds it
tu her interests to exploit, destroy and swallow up this
country—what will China then have to say? Should China
then appeal to friendship, for right and justice? Japan
will say to her: “Did you have any regard for friendship,
for right and justice in your dealings with Germany ? Why,
we are treating you just as you treated Germany: we are
only looking after our own interests, same as you did in
your dealings with Germany.” — Therefore, I say, if China
now follows the advice of Mr. Putnam Weale and others
and acts like a nation of cads, looking only and exclusively
after her own interests, China will be doomed. Mencius says:
“If right and honour be put last and profit and interests
be put first, then nobody will be satisfied until he has
grabbed and seized all for himself.”
On the other hand, if China now follows the advice
of General Gordon, the Christian knight and true English
gentleman, “Chinese Gordon” as he is rightly called,
because he is the only true friend and adviser whom
we Chinese have had, if China follows his counsel and
sticks to what is just and right, in spite of bribes and
threats from Mr. Putnam Weale and other self-seeking
foreigners in China, and if she refuses to take any hostile
Honour or INTERESTS ? 29
action against Germany, then China will show herself to
be a nation of gentlemen, a nation of gentlemen who
put friendship, right and justice above their own interests,
above even their personal safety. Now, if in this critical
period China will show herself to be a nation of gentlemen,
a nation that respects the “Law of the Gentlemen’’, then
she will gain the respect of the world, and, in my opinion,
the respect of the world will be a better protection for
China than any, even the largest, army she will ever be
able to raise and equip. Indeed I hold the firm cenviction
that as China is militarily weak, and as it would take her
too long to become militarily strong enough to enable her
to successfully resist a powerful opponent, the one and
only thing which can and will save China from destruc-
tion, if any thing at all can save her, will be the respect
of the world for her.
Now it seems to me that people nowadays torget
that besides arming ourself with physical force, good
behaviour with the respect which it inspires, is also a
protection for nations as well as for individuals. For what
is the chief and principal cause of quarrels and wars
among men and nations? It is offence, giving and taking
of offence. Solomon says, “A soft answer turneth away
wrath: but grievous words stir up anger”. Now with good
behaviour a man or a nation will certainly be able to
avoid giving cause for offence; and among civilised men
‘and nations, no man or nation, however violent, unless
thoroughly depraved, will and attack another man or
nation, unless that man or nation gives cause for offence,
and as for the thoroughly depraved among men and nations,
the respect of the others who are not thoroughly de-
praved, will protect a man or nation against the thoroughly
depraved. Indeed it seems to me that it is because the
nations in Europe and America did not sufficiently take
to heart the simple truth that good behaviour with the
respect, which it inspires, is also a protection for nations
as well as for individuals, that there has been, before
the war, that competition in armament for self-defence
which has now culminated in this present world destroying
cataclysm. Confucius says, “When foreign nations become
aggressive, then you must cultivate civil virtues (2% ##),—
virtues of good manners and refinement, in fact virtues
of good behaviour, so as to attract them—to inspire
respect in them for you.” Therefore I say, if not the only,
certainly the best protection for China, is the respect
of the world for her.
30 Honour or INTERESTS ?
I maintain that if China will now show herself to be
a nation of gentlemen, she will gain the respect of the
world, and thereby save herself. I will go further and
say that if China will now show herself to be a nation of
gentlemen and place friendship, right and justice above
all considerations of profit, interests or even personal safety,
then she will not only save herself, but may even perhaps
save the world, and the civilisation of the world to-day.
For what is after all, the chief moral cause of the terrible
war that is now going on in Europe?—It seems to me
that the chief moral cause is that the nations, the statesmen
and public men in Europe and America have forgotten
the “Law of the Gentleman” and, to use Mencius’ words,
have put right and justice Jast and profit and interests
first, and, this being the case, as Mencius says, nobody
will be satisfied until he has grabbed and seized all the
profits and interests of everybody for himself.
In my opinion there can be no peace until the
nations in Europe and America again recognise the
importance of the “Law of the Gentleman” and agree to
put honour, right and justice above profit and interests.
Indeed I will go further than that and say that I am sure
there can be no peace in the world until the peoples of
Europe and America see the errors of their wav and repent,
until they recognise that the present terrible war with
its horrors, miseries and sufferings is not the result of the
wickedness of any one single nation or individual, but only
the inevitable result of the brilliant, but false and immoral
modern civilisation of Europe, with its new learning,
liberty and progress—which foreigners want so much to
import into China. One of the fundamental differences
between a true civilisation such as we have here in China
and a false immoral civilisation such as that of Kurope, ts
this: the latter with its new learning teaches men to place
profit’ and interests first, and honour, right and justice last,
whereas the true civilisation of China with its old learning
teaches and makes men place honour, right and justice
above all considerations of profit and interests.
What a chance China has at this critical period in the
history of the world, to show the moral greatness of her
civilisation; what a chance for her to show to nations of
Europe and America that there is still one great nation in
the world, a nation of 400 million souls, who still recognise
the importance of the “Law of the Gentleman’’—a nation
that is willing to place friendship, right and justice and
Honour or INTERESTS ? 31
even personal safety, above all considerations of profit and
interests. Who knows what influence such an example
given by a nation of 400 million people may have upon
the world?
The American Emerson says, ”I can easily see the
bankruptcy of the vulgar musket worship,— though great
men be musketworshippers; and ’tis certain, as God liveth,
the gun that does not need another gun, the law of
love and justice alone, can effect a clean revolution.”
Now China has no armament sufficient even to protect
herself, and therefore by interfering in the quarrel now
going on in the world, she cannot do any good, but
only harm, to herself. But China has in her civilisation
what Emerson calls the gun that does not need another
gun, the law of love and justice, the Law of the
Gentleman, and in the present crisis in the world’s history,
if China will use that gun that does not need another
gun which is in her civilisation,—who knows but she may,
as Emerson says, effect a clean revolution and help to
put an end to the terrible world-destroying war now going
on in the world.
Therefore I say that if China will in the present
great crisis in the world’s history show herself to be a
nation of gentlemen, she will not only save herself, but
she may perhaps save the world, save the civilisation of
the world.
Mathew Arnold, in one of his three Discourses in
America, says with reference to a great newspaper prophet
of his time: “And when the ingenious and inexhaustible
Mr. Blowitz of our great London Times, who sees every-
body and knows everything, when he expounds the springs
of politics and the causes of the fall and success of mini-
stries, and the combinations which have not been tried but
should be, and takes upon him the mystery of things in
the way with which we areso familiar, oneis often tempted
again to say with the prophets: Yet the Eternal also is
wise and will not call back his words!—Mr. Blowitz is
not the only wise man; the Eternal has his wisdom also
and, somehow or other, it is always the Eternal’s wisdom
which at last carries the day. The Eternal has attached
to certain moral causes the safety and ruin of States.”
In conclusion | want to say here that Mr. Putnam
Weale, who is now taking upon him the mystery of things |
in Peking, is also not the only wise man; and the future of
32 Honour o8 INTERESTS ?
China will fortunately not depend upon what clever advice
Mr. Putnam Weale may be able to give her, but it will
depend entirely upon whether the men at the head of
affairs in the Government will seriously and carefully
attend to the moral causes to which the Eternal has
attached the safety and ruin of states and nations.
2 ee
AMERICAN MENTALITY. 33
AMERICAN MENTALITY.
The truth is, it seems to me, the modern Americans
have become unworthy of the institutions which their
fathers intended for them. At any rate. the modern
Americans, while fetishly worshipping the letter of
their Constitution, have lost the spirit of their fathers,
those true, early Americans, of whom the American
poet says,
And these were they who gave us birth,
he pilgrims of the sun-lit wave;
Who found for us this virgin earth,
And freedom with the soil they gave.
(Papers from a Viceroy’s Yamen
Remembering the words of Madame Roland in the
French Revolution, “Oh Liberty, what things are done
in thy name,” one is inclined to-day, when hearing Eng-
lishmen and Americans talk of Humanity and civilisation
to say with the noble French woman, “Oh Humanity
what things are done in thy name!”’—The President o
the United States of America, who for the last two and
a half years has allowed his people to send shiploads of
gunpowder, dynamite, lyddite, and other war materials
to Europe, in quantities sufficient not only to kill or
mutilate men by the millions, but to blow up humanity
and civilisation, has recently called upon- neutral nations,
yea, even upon poor, helpless China. to do something for
humanity and civilisation by preparing to join in that
awful orgy of slaughter and devastation which is now
going on in Europe! Oh Humanity, what things are
done in thy name!”
In an article which was reproduced in the Peking
Post of the 2Ist, of february, Mr. Wilbur M. Urban calls
this mental topsyturviness in the nations of Hurope and
America ‘Mentality in War-Time’,; and -while he thinks
that there is every excuse for this impairment of the
belligerent mind in Europe, he can find no excuse for
this breakdown of intelligence in the American people.
But I think that if not an excuse, certainly a very good
explanation can be given for this present outburst of
hysteria and loss of common sense itt the reputedly
practical America people, and this explanation is a very
simple one.
Carlyle said once in his wrath, “The Americans are
a nation of fools’. I personally do not think that the
34 AMERICAN MENTALITY.
Americans can be called a nation of fools, but I believe
that. they are a nation of children—of grown-up pre-
cocious children.—The reason, I may here point out,
why we Chinese and the Americans. both here and in
America, take so much to each other, is because we
Chinese, as I have tried to show ina book * which I have
recently published, are, like the Americans, also a nation
of children. But there is this difference between the
Chinese and Americans: we Chinese are a nation of
children who have lived as a great civilised people for
over 3,000 years, whereas the Americans have really
lived as a great civilised nation onlv for barely half a
century. I told Dr. Goodnow, the late Adviser to Yuan
Shih-k’ai, that in wanting to make a Constitution for
China, he should remember that the Chinese governed a
great Empire long before America was even discovered.
Moreover, we Chinese. having lived so long as a great
civilised nation, are, as I have said in my book, a nation
of children with the power of mind and rationality of
grown-up persons, which is the wonderful peculiarity of
us Chinese and makes us unique as a people in the
world.. The Americans, not having lived so long as we
Chinese have, are a nation of pure, simple children, who
have not that power of mind and rationality of grown-up
persons which we Chinese possess.—Some body who has
been in America and knows the Americans well, once said to
me: “The Americans are a people without souls.” I do
not think it is just to say that. But I believe it can with
some Justification be said that the Americans: are a people
with the souls in them not yet developed, in fact a
nation of children whose spiritual nature has not yet
awakened.
Indeed, if you will remember that the Americans
are really a nation of children, with the souls in them
yet undeveloped, you will be able to understand the
good as well as*the bad traits of the American people.—
Emerson speaks ni the ‘great, intelligent, sensual, avari-
cious America.’ AJjl children, before their spiritual nature
is sufficiently developed to feel the need of spiritul wants,
are always sensual and avaricious. As to intelligence, the
intelligence of the average American is nothing more
than what is rightly called ‘horse-sense’, the intelligence
of an intelligent animal. This horse-sense inteiligence
which the Americans have, it is true, is very keen, and
* “The Spirit of the Chinese People”
\
AMERICAN MENTALITY. 35
what is more, it is a very sound, safe and reliable intel-
ligence, more reliable often than book-learning intelligence,
that is to say, when you are dealings with simple objects
and things of the material world such as felling trees,
killing pigs and making clam chowder. But when you
come to deal with such immaterial and complex matters
as education, religion, civilisation’ and international law,
this ‘horse-sense’ of the Americans is apt and liable, as
Ruskin has said, to become pure simple and very danger-
ous non-sense. Indeed, I may point out here that the
reason why the Americans, despite all their keenness, are
of all people in the world a people most easily gulled by
quacks of all kinds, is, because the intelligence of the
average even the educated, American is merely horse-sense,
the intelligence of an intelligent animal.
Again, like all children, especially those who are
well fed and have plenty to eat, the Americans are, as a
rule, kind-hearted and generous. But the kind-heartedness
and generosity of the Americans, like those of children,
are never just, steadv, measured and continuous, indeed
they are often foolish, extravagant and unreliable. You
will find a good illustration of the unsteadiness of that
kind of kindheartedness which the Americans have, in
Goethe’s ‘Wilhelm Meister’. Felix, the son of the hero of
that famous novel, came one morning to his father, cry-
ing bitterly and complaning because one of the grooms
had cruelly beaten a favourite horse. But in the same
afternoon, his father found him taking hold of a live
pigeon, twisting its neek and strangling it until the bird
was dead.—In the same way, the American people, who
send money to China to build hospitals for sick Chinese,
who weep over the sufferings of deported Belgians, are
capable of lynching negroes and hitching up inoffensive
Chinese (vide Ruskin, Forsclavigera, letter 13).
In short, I maintain that you can understand the utter
silliness of many of the American religious societies and
institutions, the noise, nonsense and humbug of American
home politics, and the gaucherie, childishness and unreli-
ability of American diplomacy, if you will remember that.
the Americans are a nation of children—of undisciplined,
precocious children, with the souls, the spiritual nature in
them, not yet developed.
‘But when speaking of the defects of the mind and
character of the American people, I think it very neces-
sary here to point out at the same time that all these defects
and faults which one finds in the American people, are
36 AMERICAN MENTALITY.
really the defects and faults of badly brought up children.
Indeed, even such crimes as the ‘hitching up’ of inoffen-
sive Chinamen or the lynching of negroes, which have
been and are still every year committed by the American
mob, are after all nothing but the naughtiness of children,
the ‘impulsive, thoughtless acts of children in a passion,
and not deliberate acts of brutality of grown-up men
with diseased, depraved and ruined moral natures. In
other words, the defects in the mind and character of
the American people, I want to say, are merely the
results of a bad education. *
Take, for instance, one of the greatest faults in
Americans—their vulgarity. Ruskin says: “The essence of
vulgarity lies in want of sensation. Simple and innocent
vulgarity is merely an untrained and undeveloped blunt-
ness of body and mind, but in true inbred vulgarity,
there is a dreadful callousness of body and soul, which, in
extreme cases, become capable of every sort of bestial habit
and crime.”—Now the apparent vulgarity of the Americans,
of the badly educated Americans, is, as Ruskin says,
merely the simple and innocent vulgarity of the untrained
and undeveloped bluntness of body and mind. The
vulgarity of the English Cockney, and of the French
bourgeots, ** is, on the other hand, inbred in the bones. In
my book ‘Papers from a Viceroy’s Yamen’ which was
written after the Boxer trouble, I gave an example of
what I call true inbred vulgarity, the vulgarity of the
Cockney, which [ think it useful to reproduce here:—
“Last summer when ientsin City was taken by the
Allied troops, the telegram to the newspapers in Shanghat
announcing this news, thus described the awful state of
things in the North: “Tientsin, 15th July.—Thousands of
corpses blister in the streets under the terrible sun. A
great part of the city is ‘still burning, and the great
glare of the conflagration throws a lurid light on the sur-
rounding country when darkness falls’\—With this tele-
gram, and the thousands of blistering corpses still staring
them in the face, the British Community and the British-
*The late famous Frenchman M. Renan says: “The sound
education of the people is an effect of the high culture of certain
classes. The countries which, like the United States, have created
a considerable popular education, without any serious higher
instruction will long have to expiate this fault, by their intellec-
tual mediocrity, their vulgarity of manners, their superficial spirit,
their lack of general intelligence.”
** “)’appelle bourgeois, tout homme qui pense bassement.”
AMERICAN MENTALITY. 37
governed Municipal Council of Shanghai officially decided
to celebrate the fall of Peking with painted poles, illum-
inations and torchlight bicycle rides.”
This is what I call inbred vulgarity, vulgarity in
the bones of the British Cockney.—At this moment when
the English newspapers in China are calling the atten-
tion of the Chinese to the petulant ‘wrathful’ words of the
German Kaiser at the time of the Boxer trouble. I think
it very useful that the Chinese and the world should
also know how the British people in Shanghai, who call
themselves the Sons of Vikings, behaved to us Chinese
during the Boxer trouble.—'The German Emperor had at
least’ this excuse for his wrathful words spoken in a
moment of passion: he did not really know the Chinese
people. But the British in Shanghai who live amongst
the Chinese, have not even that excuse for their display
of heartless, brutal, stupid vulgarity, the vulgarity of a
people with base and ignoble, or diseased and depraved
moral natures in them.
Indeed, when one hears some people, especially Eng-
lishmen, speak of the vulgaritv of Americans, one should
place beside this outburst of brutal British vulgarity to
which I have just referred, the behaviour of the Com-
mander of an American man-of-war during the Spanish-
American War. On a certain occasion during that war, .
one of the American ships wrought terrible havoc with
her shells on a Spanish ship. The American sailors in
their excitement gave a cheer, when they saw how every
shot found its mark. But the Commander quietly said to
his men: “Dont shout, boys, the poor devils are dying”
In my book ‘Papers from a Viceroy’s Yamen’, I
said: “That is something which shows the soundness yet
of the American nation, notwithstanding the many things
one sees in America to-day.” I will now go further than
that and say that not only is the American nation
to-day still organically sound, but, in my opinion, the
Americans are, besides the Chinese, the only people in the
world to-day who possess the secret of a true civilisation. —
Now, what is the secret of a true civilisation ?
Emerson says:—“‘My English friends asked me
whether there are any Americans? Any with an Americ-
an idea? hus challenged, I bethought myself neither of
caucuses nor congress, neither of presidents nor of cab-
inet ministers, nor of such as would make of America
another Europe. I thought only of the simplest and
-
388 AMERICAN MENTALITY..
purest minds and said certainly ‘Yes’. So I opened the
dogma of no-government and non-resistance. I said: It
is true that I have never seen in any country a man of
sufficient valour to stand up for this truth; and yet it is
plain to me that no less valour than this can command
my respect. I can easily see the bankruptcy of the
vulgar musketworship, and ‘tis certain as God liveth, the
gun that does not require another gun, the law of love and
justice alone can effect a clean revolution.” This Americ-
an idea of Emerson's, this dogma of no-government and
non-resistance, is what I call the secret of a trne
civilisation. * )
We Chinese, I have said, are a nation of children. But
although we are children, yet because we have the secret of
a true civilisation, we are able to govern a great Empire. In
short we are able to keep in peace and order the greater
portion of the population of the Continent of Asia, because
we have not only this American idea of Emerson’s, but we
make it a religion, a Religion of good Citizenship, as I have
called it. In the same wav the reason why the Americans,
although they are, like us Chinese, a nation of children,
are yet able to hold together the United States of
America, to keep in peace and order the greater portion
of another great Continent, is because the American
people have this American idea of Emerson’s, which I
say again is the secret of a true civilisation.
In conclusion [ wish to say that I should like in
the present great crisis in the world’s history to call
together all ¢rwe Chinese and all true Americans. all the
simplest and purest minds in both our countries, who
still believe in this American idea of EKmerson’s, who still
have in their hearts the secret of a true civilisation
which our fathers gave us, to join and help me to say to
those countrymen of ours who, as Emerson says, have the
tape-worm of Europe in their brains and want to make
of America and China another EKurope—-to say to those
vain, selfish, mad. excited men in both countries who
are now shouting to go to war with Germany and take
part in the terrible slaughter now going on in }iurope,
to say to them. as the American Commander said to
his sailors: “Don’t shout, boys, the poor devils—the poor
devils there in EHurope, are dying.
* Goethe, explaining this dogma of no-government of Emers-
on’s, says: “I am asked which is the best government? That
which teaches us to govern ourselves, which makes the govern-
ment of ourselves by others unnecessary.”
HauF Hours Witxa ConFucius. 39
HALF HOURS WITH CONFUCIUS.
Confucius said: To acquire knowledge and as
you go on acquiring, to put into practice what you
have acquired,—is not that one of the pleasures of life?
When friends of congenial minds come from afar to
seek you because of your attainments,—is not that one
of the joys of life? But not to worry, when men do not
know you,—is not that the mark of a ture gentleman ?
Discourses and Sayings of Confucius Chapter I 1.
Confucius here gives the experience of a_ true
scholar, the spirit, temper and attitude of mind a man
must have, if he wants to be a true scholar. The true
scholar, above all things, must have an undivided and
disinterested love for the object of his study in itself
and he can know that he has this, if he finds real
pleasure in what he studies. Whatever people may say
of the defects of the old now discredited system of
education in China, under the Confucian dispensation it
had, it seems to me, one merit,—the scholar under the
old system, if he succeeded in becoming a scholar, was a
gentleman ; a man who had the spirit of a true scholar.
Now that is what one cannot confidently say of the new
system of education, the education under the dispensation
of the “New Learning” which has come now into China.
Dr. Legge speaking of a monumental edition of the
Canonical Books with commentaries published in the
reign of the Emperor Ch’ien Lung by subccription,
contributed by the literati and scholars of the time, said
that “foreigners should nut think meanly of the scholars
of China,—the scholars of the old school,—who thus
showed that they had real zeal for literature.” But the
scholars who have been brought up under the new
dispensation or have been converted to the “New
Learning,’’—such for instance, as the present Minister of
Agriculture and Commerce, Mr. Chang Chien, who was
once the opitmus laureatus in the Examination, but 1s
now a staunch adherent of the New Learning, these
scholars of the New Learning, have now no zeal for
literature. but only zeal for railways, coal mines, oil
mines, banking and loan making, in fact only for every-
thing which will bring in hard cash.
40 Hatr Hours Wir ConrFvcivs.
The scholars of the old school, whatever may be >
their shortcomings, all of them, had more or less a
refined taste, which made them hate a big crowd,—a big
crowd with tea, cakes and refreshments in a big hall.
One never heard of the scholars of the old school
lecturing in crowded public halls with clapping of hands
and waving of five coloured flags. The scholars of the
old school had their joys only when “friends of congenial
minds,—a select and chosen few,—came from afar to
seek them because of their attainments.” The scholars
of the old school honoured Confucius by studying him
and trying to understand him and to live up to his
teaching, and not by founding Confucian Societies and
shouting and getting every bodv to shout, K’ung
Fu-tzul K’ung Fu-tzu! To the scholars of the old
school, Confucianism was a religion, but it was a religion
like the religion of the English gentleman who, when
asked by a lady to say what his religion was, answered,
“it is the religion of all sensible people.” ‘‘And, pray,
what is that?” asked the lady. “Well.” he answered,
‘it is a religion which all sensible people have agreed
upon not to talk about.”
In fact there is a great change which, with the
“New Learning,” has come over the spirit of the scholars
in China. Confucius in another place, the Zi Che (jf§3d),
said, “I have heard it is good taste to come and learn, | have
not heard it is good taste to go and éeach (HUA ARS BiG
41:4). Now the scholar of the old school wanted to learn,
was anxious always only to mature and perfect his
knowledge and learning; but the scholar of the “New
Learning,” wants to teach, is anxious, eager and in a hurry
to lecture, to preach, to proclaim the “New Learning” he
has discovered, his “system.” his “faith,” philosophy,
psychology, or religon. The scholars of the old school,
when speaking of education, used the term hsiao wen
(RY), which means learning and inquiring. But the
scholars of the “New Learning.” have now changed the
term for education and called it Chiao Yu (#%) teach-
ing and gtving education. The Department of State for
education in Peking, for instance, is now called the
Chiao-yu Pu (Board of Teaching and Giving Education)
instead of Hsiao Pu, (Board of Learning).
But perhaps it will be said what difference does it
make in a name? Well, the difference is this. The scholar
of the old school studied in order to qualify himself and
HauF Hours W1rH ConrFucius. 4l
to satisfy the standard required of him. He had to sit up
till the late hours in the night burning his dim oil lamp,
learning and inquiring from the good and wise of the past
ages, and in that way, had a chance of knowing something
and of getting some true ideas (to quote Wordsworth’s
“Excursion ’.):
“On God, on Nature and on human life,” *
which a true scholar ought to know and have.
But the scholar of the “New Learning” instead of
being made to burn his midnight oil in company with
the good and wise of the past ages, is now given every
encouragement to rush to the brilliantly electric lighted
hall of the Confucian Association to tell people how to
establish a perfect Contucian education or to the still more
brilliantly lighted hall of the Y. M. C. A., to lecture on
how to make everybody perfect in social virtues like the
speaker himself! Mr. Henry Norman in his book on “New
Japan”, has a chapter which he calls “A Nation at
school.” Of the “New China”, I am afraid, one cannot say
that they are a Nation at school. Of the New China one
can only say that they are a Nation building schools,
building expensive school houses, everybody building a
school for everybody except himself!
The English poet Cowper, speaking of a certain class
of preachers of his time thus fervently adjured the
bishops,
gay Seer, fed O ye mitred heads,
Preserve the church! and lay not careless hands
On skulls that cannot teach, and will not learn.
Now in modern times in China fortunately or
unfortunately as one likes to take it, it is not necessary,in
order to be a preacher of religion, reform or republicanism,
to have a bishop with a mitre on his head, to clap his
hands upon your skull. But the consequence ‘is that the
preachers of religion, reform and republicanism, in the
world to-day have become a motley crowd, good, very
good, bad, very bad, and indifferent, just like the basket
of fruits one buys from a hawker in the streets of Peking.
The chances again are ten to one or perhaps even one
hundred to one, that, without the good Bishop with the
mitre on his head to exercise some kind of control and
direction, the chances are that the very bad, the men with
no qualification whatever except a strong lung and a very
thick skin, will have a chance of a hearing and success
above all others. ‘The Chinese people at the present
* In Chinese RR (God) i (Nature) and JL (Human life)
42 ' Hatr Hours Wirs Conrvcivs.
t
moment are especially helpless against the preachers,
with the strong lungs and thick skins, of religion, reform
and republicanism,—of the “New Learning,” because, as
far as I can see, the poor Chinese people have as yet
not the faintest idea of what all these things mean. It is
said in the Bible “When the blind lead the blind.”
Mencius in his forcible way says, “Good men at one time
with the light in them, brought light to the people
(E54 UE AE ARBAB), but now men with the darkness
in them,—with their humbug and clap-trap, want to
bring light to the people (4032: Ali)’. In short
what I want to say here is that the hopelessness of the
situation now in China, as far as education goes, is that
the scholars of the New Learning that are now in China,—
the men who actually are or are to be the teachers of
the New Learning in China, are for the most part, men,
in the words of the English poet, who cannot teach and
will not learn.
Now foreigners who are true friends of China and
the Chinese and who are really interested in the cause of
education in this country should remember that the spirit.
temper and attitude of mind which the scholar or student
should be put into, is far more important than the
knowledge however useful that knowledge may be,
which he has to acquire. Here then in this saying of
Confucius which I have put in the beginning of this article,
you have the true spirit of a scholar, of a gentleman scholar
and this spirit may be summed up thus: First, he must have
an undivided and disinterested love for the object. of his
study in itself by finding real pleasure in it; secondly, he
must find enjoyment only in the society of men of
_ congenial minds with himself, and not in a society of a
big crowd with tea. cakes and refreshments in a big hall;
thirdly, he must not worry when people do not know or
take no notice of him. Foreigners who are real friends of
China and the Chinese, if they will keep this saying of
Confucius in mind, when they are asked to give their
support to the cause of education, will then be able to
give that support to the right men: men with the true
spirit of a scholar. For what China wants in this new
era to-day, is not'so much New Learning, new constitut-
ion, new hats or new boots, but a new spirit,—the true
spirit: the true spirit of the gentleman. For, as it is said
of old, ‘lé is the spirit that quickeneth.”
HauF Hours Wits ConFucivs. 43
HALF HOURS WITH CONFUCIUS
Il
Yu-tzu (a disciple of Confucius) said, “One who
in his life is a dutiful son anda good citizen y— you
will rarely find him to be a man given to resist or
defy authority; and men who are not given to resist
or defy authority, will never be found given to create
disturbance in a State.
The true gentleman devotes his attention to laying
the foundation of life. When the foundation is lard,
wisdom, knowledge of the Law of life or Religion will
come. Now to live as a dutiful son and a good citizen,—
is not that the foundation of a life of godliness, the
chief end of man as a moral being?”
Discourses and Sayings of Confucius Chapter I. 2.
Confucius always insisted upon the importance of
Learning, Scholarship, and Culture. For Confucius was
of the same opinion as Lord Bacon who says “Expert, 1.e.,
practical men, can execute and perhaps judge of particulars,
one by one; but the general counsels, and the plots and
marshalling of affairs, come best from those that are
learned.” But then Learning, Scholarship or Culture,
according to the teaching of Confucius, 1s not an end in
itself, but only means to an end. The true scholar studies
not merely to become a great scholar. Even the pleasure
. and delight which accompany, cheer and reward the scholar
in his pursuit of knowledge, are not the chief aim and
object of the true scholar in his study. ‘l’o some one who
quoted to him the common Chinese saying “to open a
book is always profitable” (BH % 47 4) Ch’eng Hao, the
great scholar and austere Confucian Puritan of the Sung
dynasty, answered that the random reading of books
without method, aim or object, but merely for the
amusement and pleasure it gives us, means trifling with
things and the wasting of our souls (Se fy FE x). » The
one aim and object of the true scholar in his study of
books and literature is to understand life, to find out
the Law of life and, by that, to learn how to live,—how
to live the érue life.
Here then immediately following the saying of
Confucius telling us how we are to learn, how we are ‘to
be true scholars, you have, in this saying of a disciple of
Confucius, the essence of the teaching of Confucius as
how we are to live, how to live the ‘true life. Now in
order to know how we are to live, we must first
44 Har Hours Wits ConFvcivs.
of all, have a clear idea what we are to live for: we must
know, as the Christian Catechism says, what is the chief
end of man. According to the Christian Catechism, “the
chief end of man is to glorify God.” That is perhaps very
true, if properly understood ; but itis vague. ‘The teaching
of Confucius here, as we see, is more explicit and leaves no
room for misunderstanding. It says “The chief end of
man is to live as a dutiful son and a good citizen.” Now
the real difference between the teaching of Confucius and
all the other great religious systems of teaching or
Religions properly so called, such as Buddhism and
Christianity,—it seems to me, is this. The object of the
one, Buddhism and Christianity, is to teach you how to
be a good man. But the teaching of Contucius goes
further, its object is to teach you how to be a good
citizen. The one, Buddhism and Christianity, tells you
that, if you want to be a good man, a child of God,
you must not think of the world, you must think only
of the state of your soul and of your dutv to God. The
other the teaching of Confucius, savs, while it is indeed
very necessary that you should think of the state of
your soul in order to put it into proper order, you must
at the same time think of the world into which God has
brought you in order to do the work he wants you. to
do, and if you want to do your duty to God, you must.
do your duties to men: your duties as a dutiful son and
a good citizen. In fact, religion properly so called, Budd- -
hism and Christianity, is a religion originally intended for
men who find that while they remain as citizens in the
world, they cannot be good men and therefore make up
their minds to leave the world, and cease to be cztizens
in order to become good men. In other words, religions
like Buddhism and Christianity are religions intended for
men living in: hermits’ cells in the mountains and in the
wilderness and for people living in bungalows in Peitaiho
who have nothing particular to do except think of the
state of their soul and of their duty to God. But the
teaching of Confucius is quite a different thing. It is a
religion or system of morality, if you like to call it so,
intended for men living as citizens, with, as Carlyle says,
“taxes, house rents and botherations.”
In a word, Confucianism may be called a religion
of good citizenship, But people will say, that is not a
religion. Perhaps it is not. It is not, I admit, a religion
for halo-crowned ecstatic saints. Confucianism is only a
religion for ordinary humdrum everyday people who pay
HauF Hours Writ ConFrucius. 45
taxes and house rents.’ But then it is not an easy religion.
If it is not a religion for ecstatic saints, neither is it a
religion for happy people who can afford to live in Pei-
taiho. It is, I want to say here, a standard of teaching
harder to live up to, than even religions properly so
called, such as Buddhism and Christianity. In order to be
a good Buddhist or a good Christian, one has only to
shave the hair off his head, put on a cassock and enter
a monasterv or go to Peitaiho; one has only to think of
the state of his soul and of his duty to God. But to be a
good Confucianist, one has nowhere to go; one has not
only to think of the state of his soul and of his duty to
God, one has also to think of his duties to men; of his
duties to his family, of his duties as a citizen; in fact,
his duty—the right and proper thing to do,—to the
President of the Republic as well as to his mother-in-law!
In short Confucianism, the teaching of Confucius which is
a religion of good citizenship, is not an easy religion.
What is more, Confucianism, the teaching of Confucius
I want to say here, if it has not produced halo crowned
estatic saints, has done as great and wonderful things in
the world as religions properly so called, such as Budd-
hism and Christianity. Confucianism, although it is, as
the Jearned professor of Chinese in the London University, .
Sir Robert Douglas says, only “a matter-of-fact system
of morality specially suited to the phlegmatic and unspecul-
ative Mongolian mind!” is nevertheless the power which
more than anything else has kept in peace and order, the
greater portion of the population of the Continent of Asia
under a great Empire.
Now one of the most astonishing things which has
struck me in China to-day is the “cheek” of the people
who come with their ‘New Learning” to China to teach
the Chinese people how to be good citizens, how. to be
perfect in social virtues,—the Chinese people to whom good
“citizenship” is a religion and who have no religion
except the “ religion of good citizenship ” ; to teach the
Chinese people how to govern the Chinese Empire,—the
Chinese people who are the citizens of the most longlived
and oldest Empire in the world! President Roosevelt going
to Egypt to give lectures to British Statesmen how to gov-
ern the British Empire is nothing to it! But of course, one
ought not to be astonished at anything in China. For in
China, such, things as “cheek,” impudence and vulgarity
live now, like foreigners, under exterritoriality. But the
funniest part of the thing to me—or the most tragic side of
46 HauF Hours Wits ConFucivs.
the story, just as one likes to take it—, inthis New Learning
wanting to teach the way how to govern an Empire to
the people of an Empire which existed before the Roman
Impire existed, is that the scholars, the élite of the scho-
lars, the intellectual aristocracy of this great Empire. not
only stand this “nonsense,” but seriously take to and
really believe in this “ New Learning.” Well, it seems
to me, the midsummer madness of the ‘“ Boxers” in
1900, is nothing to be compared with the distortion of mind,
dementia, or enchantment which has come over those
queer looking old bottles filled with new wine, whom one
sees to day in China masquerading as “imitation Euro-
peans.”
But seriously speaking, it seems to me that if there
is one thing which the Chinese people have no need to
learn from other peoole, it is the science of government.
The English proverb says “the test of the pudding is in
the eating of it.” Now can anybody tell me of any people
in the world, ancient or modern, except the ancient Romans
and perhaps the British people to-day, who have succeeded
in governing a really great Empire; in fact who have
had such success in the business of government as the
Chinese people? By government, of course, | mean, not
building constitutions, assembling parliaments, talking
politics and making a great noise, put keeping peace and
order in a State.
Now what is the secret of this success, of this
wonderful success of the Chinese people in the business of
government? The secret is not a recondite one. It is con-
tained in that common saying Men and not system or as
we Chinese say, @ AM WGik. In other words the Chinese
people have succeeded wonderfully in the business of
Government, because, instead of bothering them selves with
constitutions, they have gone to the root of the matter
in this business of Government; they have tried to learn
how to be good citiziens. The rulers of China, all the
great rulers we have had, instead of depending upon elab-
orate laws, regulations and constitutions, have always
depended upon the right men they know how to choose.
The true function of the Emperors or Head of the state
in China, | would like to point out here, is not to govern—to
occupy, himself with the details of the administration, but
te choose, the right men: above all, to inspire, to give the
right spirit and tone to the men he chooses and to see that
these men keep up the right spirit and tone. In a word,
Hatr House Wits ConFrucivs. 47
the true function of the Ruler or Sovereign in China, is to
be responsible for the character not only of the men in
the puplic service, but also of the whole nation. Indeed
the function even of the officials in China is not so much
to govern as to form the character of the people whom
he is set over, and by that to make them independent of
government. Goethe, when he was asked to say what: form
of government he thought best, answered: ‘‘ That which
tends to make government unnecessary.”
The late Dr. D. F. Macgowan in his survey of the
industrial and mercantile life of the Chinese says, “The
one notable feature to be observed in this people is their
capacity for combining, which is one of the chief character-
istics of civilised men. To them organisation and
combined action are easy, because of their inherent
reverence for authority and their law-abiding instincts.
Their docility is not that of a broken-spirited emasculated
people but results from habits of self control and from
’ being long left to self government in local, communal or
municipal matters; as regards the State, they learn self
reliance; were the poorest and least cultured of these
people placed by: themselves on an island, they would
as soon organise themselves into a body politic as men
of the same station in life who had been tutored in
rational democracy.”
Now if the secret of the success of the Chinese people
in the business of government, is the principle of ‘‘ Men,
and not system”, which made them concentrate their
energies upon learning how to be good citizens, instead of
bothering about constitutions. The secret of their wonderful.
success again in becoming really good citizens is the
inherent reverence for authority” spoken of by Dr.
Macgowan which is the fundamental principle, the foundation
of the whole system of education, teaching, religion, ‘Ola
Learning,” in fact the Religion of Good Citizenship in China.
With this inherent reverence for authority, we have always
had what Dr. Macgowan calls “rational democracy’”’ in
China,—at least from the time of the Han dynasty in the
beginning of the Christian era until now. Without inherent
reverence for authority, we have now, as everybody can
see what may he called “irrational democracy,” under the |
present “mongrel” Republic. Although the form of Govern-
ment in China has always been a Monarchy, we have
never had Despotism, although every body now has agreed
to say that the Government in China until this Republican
era has been a despotic Government. When the people
48 Hau¥r Hours Wits Conrvcivs.
have the spirit of rational democracy in them, as the
Chinese people have always had,—despotism is impossible,
The only time there was real despotism in China, was
under ‘I’s’in Shih Huang-ti, the Emperor who burnt the
books; and that was because the people in China then
were possessed with the spirit of “irrational democracy.”
Indeed the outcome of “irrational democracy,”—and perhaps
too the cure for it,—is despotism; the more the democracy
is “irrational”, the more terrific the despotism.
In China, I say, we have always had “rational demo-
cracy,’ although the form of government has ever been a
Monarchy. The Chinese people have always been a demo-
cratic people. Indeed I will even venture to say that as
far as I know, the Chinese people,—I mean here the veal
Chinese people, and not the crowd or mob one sees mas-
querading as “imitation Europeans” in the streets and
public offices in China to-day—the Chinese people I say
are the only truly democratic people in the world to-day.
Professor G. Lowes Dickinson of King’s College. Cambridge,
author of the famous “Letters from John Chinaman” in
his latest book of travels says: ‘‘I have never been in a
country where the common people are ‘at once so self-respect-
ing, so independent and so courteous. In America, for
example, everybody appears to think it necessary to assure
you that they are as good as you are by behaving
rudely to you. Nothing of the kind obtains in China, for it .
would never occur to them that they are not as good.
There is none of this self conscious assertion of their
rights; still less is there anything of that grovelling servility
which one meets everywhere in India. ‘he Chinese man is
the democratic man. He is already, as far as his atitude
to himself and to his fellows is concerned, what demo-
crats hope the western man may become.” ‘That is
why I say that the Chinese people to-day are the only
democratic people in the world. The difference between
the true “rational” democrat and the false ‘ irrational
democrat” lies even in this: the true democrat is a man
to whom it never occurs that he is not as good as you.
are while the false democrat is a man who conscious
that he is really not as good as you are, tries by self
conscious assertion of his rights, to show you that he is
as good. The true democrat thinks, not of his rights, but
of his duty. The false democrat instead of doing his
duty, asserts his rights. That is the difference between
rational and irrational democracy.
Now what I want to tell foreigners who are true
friends of China and the Chinese and who are seriously
Har Hours WitH ConrFrucius. 49
interested in the present situation in this countrv is that
the hope of China is not Yuan Shih-kai. The hope of
China is not the crowd of imitation Europeans who give
balls and tea parties to foreigners. The hope of China, I
want to tell foreigners is, what Dr. Macgowan calls the
inherent reverence for authority, the religion of good-
citizenship in the Chinese people. The fact that notwith-
standing the revolutionary turmoil we have had during
the last two and a half years and under a government
which has done absolutely nothing, except borrowing and
spending money and making regulations and promises of
reorganisation, notwithstanding all this, that there is still
at the present moment, throughout this great Empire, comp-
aratively speaking, peace and order among the people
which astonishes foreigners, is due. certainly not to the
superlative sagacity, wisdom or any merit of Yuan Shih-
kai as many foreigners imagine, but to the fact that the
masses in China, fortunately, have not lost their inherent
reverence for authority, their religion of good-citizenship. In
short the hope of China to-day is not Yuan Shih-kai, but
this religion of good-citizenship of Confucius. Here then in
this saying of a disciple of Confucius which I have put in
the beginning of this article, you have the simple
enunciation of this religion of good citizenship of Confucius
which may be summed up thus: First, the peace and
order, the tranquillity and existence itself of a State do
not depend upon laws and constitutions, but upon the
citizens of that State every one doing his best to live a
life of true godliness or to speak in modern dialect, a moral
life; secondly the foundation, the essence, of a moral life
or life of true godliness, is to live as a dutiful son and
goed citizen; thirdly, the secret of citizenship, is to do
your duty and not assert your rights, to have and show,
not suspicion and defiance, but reverence for authority.
Mencius puts this religin of good citizenship in one
sentence: ‘When everybody has love for kindred, and,
reverence for authority then there will be peace in the
world? (AA ERB EH RMK FA).
; Foreigners who are true friends of China and the
Chinese, if they will keep this saying of the disciple of
Confucius in mind, will then understand the true state of
things in China, better than by reading books on China
written by clever men like Messrs Backhouse and Bland
who naively and actually tell you that the rise and fall
of Empires depend merely upon the good or bad character
of the servant or valet whom an Emperor or Empress
5O HauF Hours Wits ConFvcius.
employs to clean his boots or carry her shawl and
umbrella! Foreigners who, will try to understand this
Religion of good citizenship of Confucius, will know that
peace, order and tranquillity in China does not depend
upon the character of an Emperor’s valet or Empress’
maid servant, but upon all persons living in this country,
high and low, foreigners as well as Chinese, doing their
best to live a life of true godliness, which means behaving
and conducting themselves, doing their duty and not
asserting their rights,—as dutiful sons and good citizens.
Foreigners who are true friends of China and the Chinese
knowing this, will, then instead of tolerating and encou-
raging, help to put down everything which is against the
cause of good citizenship, everything which destroys good
citizenship, such as “cheek,” impudence, extravagance,
vulgarity and ugliness, against which we Chinese at
present,—even the few still willing and able to fight,—are
helpless and in despair because, these things now calling
themselves, “ New Learning,” progress, liberty and repub-
licanism, in China, as I said, live—like foreigners, under
exterritoriality —beyond the jurisdiction of Confucius and
his teaching. In this way foreigners who are true friends
of China and the Chinese, will not only assist to
_ restore peace and order in this country, but will also
help the cause of true civilisation, true progress and
true liberty in the world. For true liberty means, as
the French Joubert says, not political, but moral liberty,
not free men but free souls. What China wants, what
the world wants to-day, therefore is not merely free
country, free institutions, free press or free speech,
but free souls. The real Chinese word for liberty also
means moral liberty and a free soul. When the Chinese
wish to say there is no liberty in a nation they say there
is no ¢tao in the nation ($i). The word ¢ao in the
teaching of Confucius is defined as the law of our being
and the law of our being again is defined as the Ordinance
of Heaven or Law of God. The real Chinese word for
liberty therefore means a free soul, the liberty to fulfil
the law of our being, and that again means moral liberty,
the liberty to obey the Ordinance of Heaven, the Law
of God. “J will walk at liberty, for I seek thy precepts.”
(Psalm. CXIX 45).*
* See Appendix I.
Haur Hours WitH ConFucivs. 51
HALF HOURS WITH CONFUCIUS
III |
Confucius said:—“There was the Emperor Shun.
He was perhaps what may be considered a truly great
intellect. Shun had a natural curiosity of mind and
he loved to inquire into near topics. He looked upon
evil merely as something negative ; and he recognized
only what was good as having a positive existence.
Taking the two extremes of negative and positive, he
applied the mean between the two extremes in his judge-
ment, employment aw dealings with the people. This
was the characteristic of Shun’s great intellect’
The Chung Yung or Universal Order VI. *
What is here said of the Emperor Shun in ancient
China may be also said of the two greatest intellects in
modern Hurope,—Shakespeare and Goethe. The greatness
of Shakespeare’s intellect is to be seen in this: that im
all his plays there is not one essentially bad man. Seen
through Shakespeare’s intellect, such a monster of wicked-
ness of the popular imagination as King Richard the
Hunchback, becomes not a villain who. makes “damnable
faces’, not even a really despicably bad man, but on the
contrary, a brave heroic soul who is driven by his strong
ill-regulated vindictive passions to awful acts of cruelty
and finallv himself to a tragic end. In fact, the tragedy
of all Shakespeare's tragedies, as it is of real human life,
is not the misery resulting from evil in man’s nature;
not the misery of essentially bad wicked men whe do
not exist except in the imagination of the man oi small
vulgar intellect; but the tragedy is the pitiful, pitiable
misery and suffering of good brave, heroic, noble-minded
men who are driven by their ill regulated passions to
tragic courses and to a tragic end. Herein then lies the
greatness of Shakespeare’s intellect.
Now, if seen through the intellect of Shakespeare,
a human monster of wickedness becomes merely a man
with strong ill regulated passions; the very Devil seen
through the intellect of the great Goethe, becomes not a
monster of fire and brimstone, not even an evil spirit,
but merely a spirit of negation (ein Geist der stets
vermeint), in fact, merely a partial, incompletely developed
nature. Goethe elsewhere says: “What we call evil in
human nature is merely a defective or incomplete develop-
ment, a deformity or malformation— absence or excess
* The book known to foreigners as “The Doctrine of the Mean”
52 HaLF Hours WitH ConFUCIUS.
——
of some moral quality rather than anything positively
evil.” We can see now how deep and true is the insight
of Confucius in pointing out in the text above that the
true characteristic of a great intellect is ability to see
only good and not evil in the nature of things.
Emerson also says: “We judge of a man’s wisdom
by the largeness of his hope.’ If this is true, then the
prevalence of what is called pessimism in individuals, as
in nations is a sure sign of the unsoundness, defect or
deformity of intellect.
Now the prevalence of pessimism at the present day
in the general thought and literature of Europe, I may
point out here, is the natural result of the modern system
of education—education for everybody, encouraged and
supported by the State, which aims at quantity rather
than quality of education—quantity of indifferently educ-
ated men rather than quality of really educated men.
In short, the inevitable result of a system of education
which aims more at quantity than quality, is incomplete
half education, and the product of half education is an
incompletely developed nature. Now, if it is true, as
Goethe says, that the devil, incarnation of the spirit
which does all the mischief in this world, is only an
incompletely developed nature, then it follows that the
average product of the modern system of half education
in Europe at the present day,—is really an incarnate
devil. The distinguishing traits of the devil’s character,
as we know from Milton, are in an active form,—pride,
arrogance, conceit, ambition, presumption, insubordination,
“having no regard or fear for the moral law” or for
anything; and all these qualities you will find in the
average product of the modern system of half education,
when the man happen to be of a strong and coarse
nature. The other distinguishing traits of the devil’s
character in a passive form are meanness, callousness of
feeling, want of natural affection, envy, jealousy, suspicion
and pessimistic views of men, men’s nature and motives
and of things in general; and all these qualities you will
also find in the average product of the modern system of
half education when the man happens to be of a weak
and soft nature.
Now when one bears in mind the fact that the
welfare of mankind and the cause of civilization in the
world to-day are actually in the hands of really zncarnate
devils, unhappy products of the modern system of half
education, with all the characteristics I have shown in
Hat¥ Hours WitH ConFrucius 53
the above,—who form the greater part of the so-called
educated and governing class in Europe and America at
the present day; when one bears this fact steadily in
mind, one ought not to be surprised, that the affairs of
the world are in such a mess as can be seen in the
“scientific butchery” called war for the cause of civilization
which is now going on in Europe. The moral of all
this is that the real cause of the anarchy or want of
moral social order resulting in a big mess of all public
affairs in the world at the present day, is when traced to
its root,— decay, insufficiency, unsoundness of intellect;
and this decay, insufficiency, unsoundness of intellect 1s
the result of the modern false system of State encouraged
education or rather half education, which aims more
at quantity than quality of education. Therefore, if there
is ever to be again true moral social order and peace in
the world, the present modern false system of education,
of State supported education, must be thoroughly reform-
ed; and the first step towards such a reform must be to
strictly limit the quantity of education, of would-be
educated men, and to improve the quality of the really
educated men, this last by saving the money which is
now spent in building colleges and universities, as Emerson
says, for fools and men who are really unfit for a
thorough higher education, and spending that money for
the encouragement and support of the few men who are
found to be really fit for a higher education in order to
enable them throughly and perfectly to complete their
education; in fact, to adopt such a system of State
education as the Chinese in old times and Japanese in
the days of the Tokugawa regime, called #-- and wf,
support and making of gentlemen. It was the thought of
the awful consequences of the unlimited quantity of
would-be educated men in the world, which was in
Goethe’s mind when in his latter days he was inclined to
think that Martin Luther was responsible for putting
back the state of civilization in Europe for two hundred
years, because Luther, by translating the Bible into
vernacular German, prepared the way for the disuse and
supercession of the Latin language among the really
educated gentlemen in Europe and thus opened the door
for easy education to the unlimited quantity of would-be
educated men to take part in the affairs of the world,
with the consequences: which we now see.
54 Hatr Hours Wits Conrucivs
HALF HOURS WITH CONFUCIUS
IV.
Confucius said:—‘Men all say ‘we are wise’, but
when driven forward and taken in a net, a trap or a
pit-fall, there is not one who knows how to find a way
of escape. Men all say, we are wise; but in finding the
true central clue and balance in their moral being and
following the line of conduct which ts in accordance
with it, they are not able to keep tt for a round month.”
The Chung Yung or Universal Order VII.
As in the preceding chapter the writer of this book,
seeing that the anarchy and want of moral social order
in the world is due to defect and unsoundness of intellect
in men, quotes. a saying of Confucius showing the true
characteristic of a great whole and sound intellect; so
in the present chapter he quotes another saying of
Confucius showing the conceit and uselessness of the
half intellect of so-called wise men in dealing with the
deadlock in private or public affairs—deadlock as if
caught in a net, a trap or a pit-fall into which the ill-
regulated passions of men sometimes drive there own life
or the world. :
Thus when the affairs of an individual get into and
‘are in a mess or deadlock, the first thought which will
naturally come into the man’s head or mind is how to
escape, to get out of the mess, out of the deadlock; and
in the eagerness and excitement to get out of the mess,
out of the momentary deadlock, the man is often, and
naturally, tempted, especially if he is a clever man _ to
think of this or that or some clever dodge or contrivance
which, instead of getting him out of the mess and
deadlock, will only bring him into a greater mess and
deadlock. It is for this reason that we often see at the
present day that when the affairs of a nation or of the
world are in a mess and deadlock there are’ always men
who say they are wise men. who come forward with
schemes of reform, learned, laborious, complicated, clever
contrivances in the shape of machinery of legislation,
taxation, adoption of the gold standard; or more ambiti-
ous still, metaphysical and mathematical methods of
education, geometrical forms of constitution and, most
amazingly wonderful of all, new rules of arithmetic to
teach men how to take advantage of their neighbour
without cheating him, called systems of political eco-
nomy. But ignorant all such wise men are with all their
Har Hours Wire Conrvcivs 55
cleverness and learning; ignorant and blind to the plain
and simple fact that if you want a man to succeed in
the reform of his affairs which are in a deadlock and
mess, you must self-evidently first of all tell him how
to reform the instrument with which he has to carry out
that reform—the instrument,. viz, the man himself. If the
condition of the man’s being, ij.e., his character as_ well
as his conduct, his way of feeling and thinking as well
as his way of living and acting, is not in a state requir-
ing reform, his affairs would not be in a state of mess
and deadlock. But if the condition of the man’s being is
in a state really requiring reform, as is evident from the
state of his affairs, it is surely of no earthly use for you
to teach him complicated methods or any method how
to deal with his affairs; in fact until the man whose
affairs in mess and deadlock, has put to right and reformed
himself—his being —it is very self-evident that the poor
man is not in a fit state, not to say, to carry out your
fine and clever scheme for the reforms of his affairs, but
even to see and understand the true and exact state of
his affairs which are in a mess and deadlock so as to
apply to it anv scheme of reform whatever in such a
way as to produce any effective or good result. |
In other words, before a man or men in a nation
undertake to carry out any scheme of reform in the state
of his affairs or the affairs of a nation, he must first of
all take in hand the reform of his or their own being
and person. In short, moral reform must precede all and
every other reform.
Therefore it is true that for individuals, for nations
and for the world, when affairs are in a deadlock and
mess there is only one true way of escape, and that way
is so simple that, as Confucius says, how astonishing it
is that so-called wise men with all their cleverness do
not see it; in fact, the way is, in simple language, to
get back the evenness of your temper and your calm
judgement; to get back your true self, or in the words
of Confucius, to find the central clue and balance in
your moral being.
Moral reform therefore means simply to get back
our true self. When a man or a nation of men whose
affairs are in a mess and deadlock once recovers evenness
of temper and calmness of judgement—once get back the
true self—then and only then he or it will see and under-
stand the true and exact state of his or its affairs. When
a man or a nation understands the true and exact state
56 Haur Hours Wrrn Conrucivs
of his or its affairs he or it will then know what line of
conduct to take which will fit with the present state of
those affairs in order to bring them into order—into the
true order and system of things in the universe; in fact
to do what is called morally right and just. When a man
has got hold of his true self, which enables him to see
and do what is morally just and right, then not only
men and things, but the whole universe, governed as it
is by the same moral order, by the same order and
system of things, will respond and obey; and what-
ever things are about and around such a man will at
once again arrange themselves into a harmonious and
cosmic order.
HatF Hours Wire ConFucius : 57
HALF HOURS WITH CONFUCIUS.
V
Confucius said: ‘A man may be able to renounce
the possession of Kingdoms and Empire, be able to
spurn the honours and emoluments of office, be able to
trample upon bare, naked weapons, with all that he
Shall not be able to find the central clue in his moral
being.” |
The Chung-Yung or Universal Order IX.
As in the chapter immediately following that in
which he describes the characteristics of the great in-
tellect, the writer of this book shows the conceit and
uselessness of the half intellect, the characteristics of
false Hellenism; so in the present chapter following the
one in which he gives the true type of Hebraism, he
here again quotes another saying of Confucius showing
the characteristics of false Hebraism, the evils and abuses
resulting from the loss of balance on the moral, emotional
or religious side. The religious history of the world
with its manifestation of asceticism and fanaticism proves
how truly Confucius has here seized the characteristics
of false Hebraism or loss of balance, on the moral,
emotional or religious side of man’s nature.
Gethe says, “Religious piety (Frémmigkeit) is not
an end, but only means wherewith through the most
complete calmness of temper and state of mind (Gemiits-
ruhe) to attain the highest state of culture or human
perfection.” What Goethe here says of religious piety,
the highest inculcated virtue of Christianity and Buddhism,
is also true of the virtues insisted upon by the Japanese
Bushido, viz.,—self-denial, self-sacrifice and‘ valour or
fearlessness in presence of pain or death. ‘These virtues
insisted on by the Japanese Bushido are also not an end,
but only a means to an end. Indeed, as Mr. Matthew
Arnold truly says,—‘Christianity is not a dead set of
square rules of conduct, but a temper, a certain state of
mind.” It is perhaps more correct to say that Christianity,
Buddhism as well as Bushido, is really only a discipline,
a method fur the education of the temper and spirit of .
mankind. This discipline consists in the exercise of
certain virtues: of piety in the case of Christianity and
Buddhism, and in the case of Bushido, of self-sacrifice
and valour. ‘The exercise of these virtues is, as Goethe
says, not an end, but only the means to enable a man
58 . Hatr Hours Wrra CoyFucivs
or a nation of men to educate their temper and state of
mind into a perfect condition, and through that perfect
condition of temper and mind to attain the highest state
of human perfection, or, as in the case of a nation, what
is called the highest state of civilization.
But the disciplinary exercise of these virtues may
be carried to excess or carried out in a way which is
contrary to and destructive of the end which the exercise
of these virtues is meant to serve; in fact, carried out in
a spirit which, instead of promoting, injures and destroys
the perfect state of temper and mind wnich the exercise
of these virtues is intended to promote and bring about.
In such a case the exercise becomes not a good but a
harmful discipline. Thus for example, the excercise of
self-denial when carried to excess and in a spirit of
hatred and defiance as it was with the ancient stoics; in
a spirit of militant vain-glory as it was with the early
Christians and is now with the modern Salvation Army:
such exercise of the virtue of self-denial becomes, when
judged from the point of the universal order, not a
virtue, but a vice—a sin; because it does not promote
but injures and destroys the sweetness and harmony of
temper and mind and .therebv does real harm to the
cause of human perfection, of true civilization in the
world. In the same way the exercise of the virtue of
valour or fearlessness in presence of pain and death
insisted upon by the Japanese Bushido, when carried to
excess or exercised in a spirit of hatred and defiance,
becomes fanaticism or moral madness which is not a
virtue but a vive, a sin, and ceases to be an exercise of
true Bushido.
It is indeed true as Ruskin savs, that the trade of
a true soldier is not the trade of slaying, but of being
slain. But the soldier does not wantonly give away his
life; he must give his life only for a purpose, for the true
purpose for which he becomes a soldier. Now what. is
the purpose for which the moral man becomes a soldier?
Moltke, the greatest modern European, as well as Sun
Wu-tzu. the greatest ancient Chinese strategist, both
agree in saying that true tratery and tactics consist in
' winning a battle with the least number of men killed or
injured not only on one’s own side, but also on the side
of the enemy; and that to win a battle by injuring more
of the enemy than is absolutely necessary, is bad tacties
and bad strategy. We see now the true purpose for
which the moral man becomes a soldier and goes to war.
Har Hours Wirs Conrucivs 59
As the true object to be aimed at in a battle—the
greatest masters of war tell us—is to render the enemy
harmless, so the true purpose of war is to disarm: toa
disarm savages; to disarm an unreasonable, violent,
armed, dangerous madman. or a nation of such men who
threaten to injure and destroy moral, civil or social order,
the cause of true civilization in the world. The honour
and glory of the true soldier therefore does not lie in
killing the enemy. The glory and honour of the true
soldier lies in his being willing to be slain in trying to
disarm the dangerous armed madman. ‘The temper and
state of mind, therefore, with which the true soldier goes
to war, to the work of disarming the dangerous madman,
is the spirit and temper not of anger, hatred, defiance or
exultation, but of sadness, sorrow and infinite pity at the
inevitability of having to do it. When the true soldier
gets slain in trying to disarm the dangerous madman, he
dies not with hatred, defiance, thought of vengeance in
his heart, but with the spirit and temper of peace and
satisfaction for having done his duty, having done what
his whole being tells him to be right to do. The true
discipline of Bushido therefore does not he in hardening
of the mind and body to the sensibility of pain and fear
of death, but in ordering the natural impulses and passion
of anger, hatred, and vengeance aud bringing these
impulses and passions under control and not allowing
them to disturb the calm and evenness of a man’s temper
and state of mind.
The spirit, temper and state of mind with which
the true soldier becomes a soldier, goes to war and dies,
can be best seen in the life and death of General Gordon.
The life and death of General Gordon is the truest
exercise of Bushido in modern times. I have said that
Bushido is a discipline for the education of the temper
and state of mind of a man in order to enable him to
attain human perfection. I will add here that the life of
the true soldier while he lives is a discipline which is
confined more especially to himself, but the death of the
true soldier in a right and necessary war is a discipline
for his nation and for the world. The spirit, temper and
state of mind with which General Gordon faced and met
his death at Khartoum, as revealed in his last journals,
approaches that highest form of discipline known in this
world for the education ot the spirit and temper of
mankind, viz.,—the discipline of martyrdom called by
Goethe the depth of Divine Sorrow. Carlyle says, “Small
60 Harr Hours Wits Conrvucius
is it that thou canst trample the Earth with its injuries
under thy feet as old Greek Zeno trained thee; but thou
canst love the HKarth while it injures thee, and even
‘because it injures thee; for this a greater than Zeno was
needed and he, too, was sent.”
The moral of what I have been trying to say in
illustration of the text above is that the object to be
aimed at in moral education—in religious instruction—is
not the practice of this or that or any particular virtue.
The object in moral education is to promote and bring
about a certain temper, spirit and state of mind. The
essense and power of Christianity, as indeed it is with all
great systems of religious teaching, does not lie in any
particular precept such as even the golden rule, much
less in the collection of theories, rules of conduct and
discipline which men in after times have reduced to a
system called Christianity. The essence and power of
Christianity lies in the perfect state of temper, spirit and
mind in which Christ lived and died. Mencius, speaking
of the two ancient, worthies famous for the purity and
saintliness of their lives and character, who, living in a
world of anarchy, amidst militarism and wars for the
cause of civilization, rathan than give their consent and
approval to that state of things, chese to starve them-
selves to death at the foot of a lonely mountain,—said:
“When people even after a thousand years heard of the
spirit and temper of Pe-yi and Shuch’i, the covetous man
became unselfish and the cowardly man strong.”
I have said that the object to be aimed at in moral
education is net the practice of this, that, or any particular
virtue, but in promoting and bringing about a certain state
of temper, spirit and mind. Now the only one way to pro-
mote and bring about that perfect state of temper, spirit
and mind, is by coming under the influence of some great
religious genius such as those who have given their names
to great religious systems of the world, by studying and
understanding not only his life, his conduct and _ his
precepts, but his way of feeling and thinking: his temper,
spirit and state of mind, in fact, what we Chinese call
his tao 3& his way or manner of being or living. I ven-
ture, to say, therefore, that for the object to be aimed at in
moral education, such a sentence from the New Testament:
“Learn of me that I am mild and lowly in heart and ye
shall find rest unto your souls”; or, to take a sentence from
the sayings of Confucius: “The master is gentle, simple,
earnest, modest, humble.” (36-7 2 A¥(e3#) Such sentences
Har Hours Wits Conrucivs 61
when properly apprehended and taken in by a scholar,
will do more for the education of his moral character, of his
temper, spirit, and state of mind than the most exact and
rigid set of square rules of conduct about public and
private virtue which the most accomplished and erudite
professor in Tokio or Berlin can ever hope to draw up.
Mr. Matthew Arnold says: “It is a mistake to suppose
that rules for conduct and recommendations of virtue,
presented in correct scientific statement or in a new
rhetorical statement from which old errors are excluded,
can have anything like the effect on mankind of old rules
and recommendations to which we have been long
accustomed, with which our feelings and affections have
become entwined. Pedants always suppose they can, but
that these mistakes should be so commonly made, proves
only how many of us have a mixture of the pedant in
our composition. A correct scientific statement of rules
of virtue has, upon the great majority of mankind, |
simply no effect at all. A new rhetorical statement of
them, appealing, like the old familiardeliverances of Christ-
ianity, (or of the sacred books of China) to the heart and
imagination, can have the effect which those deliverances
had, only when they proceed from a religious genius
equal to that from which those proceeded. To state the
requirement is to declare the impossibility of its being
satisfied. The superlative pedantry of Auguste Comte is
shown in his vainly imagining that he could satisfy it.
The comparative pedantry of his disciples is shown by
the degree in which they adopt their master’s vain
imagination.”
62 ; APPENDIX.
APPENDIX
I
ANSWER TO ENQUIRER.*
(A Letter to “The Peking Gazette”)
Your correspondent “Enquirer” who writes to tell
you that my last “Half hours with Confucius” is a “botch,”
asks “Who is Sinenses and what does he know about it,”
with the air of a man who knows all about it, but
unfortunately with a tone of pertness and inurbenity which
makes one inclined to think that he knows nothing about
it,—either Christianity or Confucianism. Any one who
has studied or knows anything of the teaching of Christ
or Confucius must know that “pertness” and inurbanity
are evil spirits. Christ said, “Learn of me that 1 am mild
and lowly; and of Confucius, his disciples said: “The-
Master was mild, simple, earnest, modest and courteous”.
Your correspondent quotes the saying of a recent com-
mentator who says, “here is a fatal tendency, the
moment one gets to talking about Confucianism, to run
off into indefinite abstractions.” [ would say there is a
fatal tendency in newspaper correspondence to run off
into personalities. My first impulse, for instance, after
reading your correspondent’s letter, was to write and ask
you, who is this “Enquirer” that he takes upon himself
to say that my translation, of Confucius, is simply a
mistranslation. But, as it seems to me that “pertness,
personalities, and, inurbanity” are things worse than even
indefinite abstractions, I desisted. In fact for this same
reason, [ have always made it a rule never to answer
criticisms or attacks made upon my writings. Multi, qua
persequuntur me, et tribulant me; a_ testimontis non
declinavi. But now in this present instance I will made
an exception and break my rule. I do this, for a special
reason, because I think an explanation is called for why
I have ventured in my translation of Confucius in this
and other passages, to differ so totally from the great
Sinologue or Rabbi of Sinology, Dr. Legge, to whom the
* This correspondence arose on the publication of the Half
Hours with Confucius No. 2.
APPENDIX. 63
Te
Western world, it is true, owes a great debt for having
furnished it withthe first complete translation of the
Confucian canonical books or the Chinese Holy: Bible; but
who, I must at the same time say here, is chiefly
responsible, if seems to me, for giving to the Western
world, at least the English speaking people, a wooden
and entirely wrong conception of the character of Con-
fucius and his teaching and, even by the stupendousness
of his work, fixing and petrifying as with cement that
wrong conception which one now finds very difficult to
remove or change. However much one may find to
admire in what, to be just, may be called the pioneer
work of conscientious scholars like Dr. Legge, Morrison,
Remusat and = others,—and even of men like Dr. Giles,
scholars without the conscientiousness of a scholar,—one
must at the same time remember the text: “Be not ye
called Rabbi.” There is, I must say unfortunately a fatal
tendency among foreigners who study Chinese and Con-
fucianism not wisely, but too well,—not only to run off
into indefinite abstractions—but to become a Rabbi or
Sinologue,—a word which, according to Mr. Hopkins of
the British Consular Service, is considered by foreigners
living in China to be the synonym for the word “fool.”
Now in Chinese more than in any other language,
one must nol translate literally; otherwise the translation
becomes not only a mistranslation, but nonsense. Every
Chinese character is like an element in Chemistry such
as oxygen and hydrogen. which when by itself is one
~ substance, but when combined with another element, be-
comes quite another substance. Take, for intance, the
two characters ming pet AAA, one character meaning
bright and the other white; but when used together, the
combination does not mean to bright-white, but to under-
stand. When therefore an interpreter whom you engage
at the Hotel Wagons Lits tells you that the ricksha
coolie says he does not bright-white, you will know that
the interpreter is a bad interpreter. ‘ake again the
three characters KHbA tien tt jen. When Dr. Giles
translates the passage in the Trimetrical cassic =>Y#
KhtA as “The three Powers are—Heaven Earth and
Man,” it makes sense, but is not the real sense or
meaning. But when you translate the three characters
Kitt A as God, Nature and Human life, then you have
the full meaning of the Chinese words. The Confucian
standard of scholarship says, fE#38RHB A which, when
properly translated, means “a real scholar is one who
64 APPENDIX.
ee
knows something about or has true ideas (to quote again
from Wordsworth’s Excursion.)
“On God, on Nature and on human life”’—
In the same way therefore I translate the two
characters 2£# (Asiao tt) as “to be a dutiful son and to
be a good citizen.” The second character 7@i, it is true,
means literally and when by itself,—a younger brother.
But then from a younger brother, it comes to mean a
junior; and from junior, it comes to mean when used as
an adjective, placing oneself as a junior to every one
higher than oneself, in age, in position or authority—in
fact submissive to authority or in English, law-abiding.
Now what is to be submissive to authority and law-
abiding, but to be a good citizen?
. Now to test whether a word one uses to translate a
character in Chinese is a true translation, one has only to
use the same word to translate the same character in
different passages and see if so translated, the whole
passage makes sense. Let us now apply this test in my
present translation of “to be a good citizen” for the
character ¢2 # to different passages in the Discourses
and Sayings. Take the 6th verse of the First Chapter.
Confucius there says—“Young men when at home should
be dutiful sons (#-- ABRJ#). when out in the world good
citizens (Hi)? Take again Chapter XIII. verse 20.
There Confucius says,—the type of gentleman in the
next degree is “one whom the members of his family
hold up as a dutiful son and his fellow citizens hold up
as a good citizen” (#0 #8). In fact, if anything is
needed to prove that my translation here is not a
mistranslation, that passage from Mencius I quoted, will
prove it beyond any doubt or cavil. Mencius puts this
religon of good citizenship of Confucius in one sentence
(AA BERBERA EMRAPA)— “Let every man have love
for kindred and reverence for authority and we will then
have peace in the world.” To have love for kindred.
35-38 is hsiao # 1.e. to be a dutiful son, and to have
reverence for authority BAC is 77 Bie. to be a good
citizen.
But now to come to the objections which your
correspondents have made against my contention that
the object of Christianity and Buddhism is principally to
teach you how to “be a good man.” To “Enquirer” who
says we could consider that any one who should be a
good man, would also be a good citizen, I would point,
APPENDIX 6)
ed
not to indefinite abstractions, but to a concrete fact in
the case of the young English lady in Ichang two years
ago who, when ordered by the Consul on the outbreak of
the revolution, to leave the port refused to do so. Now
it seems to me that this young lady is a woman whom
Chritianity had taught how to be a good woman, but
not how to be a good citizen or citizeness. Indeed if any
thing is needed to prove that my contention is not
incorrect, the fact that in Christian countries there are ©
two separate and distinct institutions called the Church
and the State, it seems to me, will prove it. The Church
is there to take care and see that you become a good
man while the State is there to take care and see that
you become a good czéizen. In other words it 1s because
a religion like Christianity with its churches cannot
effectively teach men how to become good citizens that
you have a distinctly separate institution called the
State in Christian countries to make men become good
citizens. In China as in ancient Rome, the State is the
Church and the Church is the State, because we in
China have in Confucianism a religion or system of
morality, call it what you like, which can teach men
how to become good men as well as to become good
citizens. In fact the problem in Europe to-day, it seems
to me, is to find a system of morality such as we iu
China have in Confucianism, teaching men how to
become good citizens, which has the same force and
power which Christianity really has to teach men, even
savages, how to become good men.
Let me say, here, that I quite agree with your
correspondent Mr. W. P. Thomas that Christianity is a
force,—a very great force. Mr. Thomas in his way says
Christianity is “a force which binds ug back to God.” In
my way I sav Christianity is a force which awakens the
soul, the divine Nature. the Kingdom of Heaven within
us. I will even go further and say that the force that is in
Christianity as well as in Buddhism is even a great or
rather stronger force than the force that is in Confuci-
anism. But then J say this force, this great force that is
in Christianity, 1s a force which has to be controlled, to
‘be tempered by what Matthew Arnold calls the sweet
reasonableness of Christ which is what Confucius would
call di #& or law of good taste. Unless this force that is in
Christianity is thus controlled and tempered, this force,
this great stupendous force is liable to make men become
too good, too noble and, in becoming too good, too
66 APPENDIX
noble, become mad, become fanatics. When Festus said
to St. Paul, ‘Much learning doth make thee mad,” he
was mistaken as to the cause of the apostle’s noble
madness. ‘Too much learning does not make a man mad;
too much learning may make a man become a fool as
one can see in the case of sinologues who study Chinese and
Confucianism not wisely, but too well. But what. really
made St. Paul appear to the Roman Governer to be
mad, what really made him nobly mad, mad with a
noble insanity was the force that is really in Christianity,
that force, in the case of the apostle, not sufficiently
tempered by the sweet reasonableness of Christ.
In short what 1 want to say here, is that the
force, the great force that is in Christianity is a force
which, unless properly controlled and tempered, is liable
to become fanaticism, become a force destructive of good
citizenship as can be seen in religious wars in Kurope
and in the Taiping rebellion in China. Indeed, as Mat-
thew Arnold says, there is something anti-civil and
anti-social in all but the purest forms of Christianity
which made it so hateful to the ancient Romans whose
religion was like that of us Chinese, a religion of good citizen-
ship; so hateful to the educated Romans that Tacitus calls
it an exttiabilis supertsitio, odio humant generis convictt,
in fact so hateful to the pious and order loving Romans
that even such a pure and noble soul as the Emperor Marcus
Aurelius persecuted it. But then this noble insanity of
men like St. Paul, this even impure fanaticism of the
early Christians which the Roman Emperors with all
their iron legions could not stamp out, was a force then
necessary, necessary in the last days of the old pagan
world in Europe, necessary to break up that mass of
human putrifaction calling itself the civilized society of
the Roman Empire.
The great problem in Europe and America to-day,
I say, is to find a system of morality teaching men how
to become good citizens, which has the same force as
that which Christianity has, in enabling men to be good
men, in fact, a system of morality which will become a
religion to the people of Europe as Confucianism has
become the religion or the equivalent of religion to the
Chinese people. But as far as one can see, Europe and
America have not yet solved,—are yet far from solving
this great’ problem. The system ot morality of August
Comte, the sociology and ethics of John Stuart Mill and
a Herbert Spencer, have not and will never have the
APPENDIX 67
force that is in Christianity; in fact, will never become
religion to the people of Hurope as Confucianism has
become a religion to the people of China. The only sign and
augury of the coming of such a system of morality as
I have described, as far as I can see, is the attention
which the German people are now paying to the writing
and teaching of the great inspired “Vates’” or poet of
-Weimar, Goethe. In the writing and teaching of the
great Goethe, the people of Europe may find one day,
perhaps, such a religion. {[n short until Europe and
America have such a system of morality of their own
such as we Chinese have in Confucianism, Christianity is
still the one force necessary and the one force holding
society together. Indeed I often astonish and shock my
avnostic European friends by asking them. ‘If you take
away Christianity from Europe and America, what have
vou left in those two Continents ?” and telling them
that to me it seems, nothing but Dreadnoughts, cannons,
red-jackets motor cars, aeroplanes, Wagon Lits Hotels,
cinematograph shows, tango and fierce well-fed, over-fed
carnivorous animals! |
Let me say here that by Christianity, I mean the
Christianity of the Hebrew Holy Bible, the Christianity
of Christ and not what one of your correspondents calls
the modern ‘American brand of Christianity” or even the
Christianity of men like “Enquirer? who do not know
that pertness, personalities and inurbanity are evil spirits.
The late Bishop Moule of Hangchow—be it remembered
to his honour,—said: “We missionaries are come to China
to preach Christ’—he means the unspeakable sweet
reasonableness of Christ, and not “New Learning.” The
teaching of the Hebrew Holy Bible,—the teaching, the
Christianity of Christ can and will do us Chinese no harm
and perhaps in this era of the new Learning with its
Dreadnoughts, motor cars, aeroplanes etc., against which
the teaching of Confucius seems to be _ helpless,—the
_ Christianity of Christ, | say, with its sword which Christ
promised may even do good. Indeed, when the New
China which we see here to-day under the Republic once
becomes wholly a nation of carnivorous animals without
tails, then we will have to throw away Confucius and
his teaching,—we will then want Christianity in earnest,
we will then want the sword which Christ said he was
bringing to the world.
In conclusion, let me say here, that my object in
writing the Half Hours with Confucius is not to tell
68 APPENDIX.
people what Christianity is. My object is to tell foreigners
who are true friends of China and the Chinese what Con-
fucius has to say, what lessons the teaching of Confucius
has for us foreigners as well as Chinese, in the present
era of New Learning, progress, liberty and republicanism.
I am moved to do this especially because I see people
who are specially paid to teach Christianity, do not seem
to be able to tell us what the Christianity of the
Christian Bible has to say, what lessons the Christ-
lanity of Christ has for us, in this new Republican era in
China. That is why I say that Christianity, it seems to
me, is a religion which teaches men only to look after
the state of their soul, how to be good men and not to
be good citizens. I say, again, my object in writing these
articles and even in writing this letter is not to tell
people what Christianity is, I may very shortly, if I have
time, write a took on Christianity, on the modern
“American brand of Christianity.” But then I will not
call it Half Hours, but like the late Mr. W.'T. Stead who
called a book he wrote: “If Christ came to Chicago,”
I will call my book “If Christ came to the Y. M. C. A.
in Shanghai: a place, I may say, where one sees
the noble scions of rich compradores and sons of Chinese
quasi-millionaires who make their money by rubber shares
_ playing ping pong and giving banquets with money
subscribed as charity by American millionaires.—Jn fact,
rich men, “Dives,” enjoying luxury supplied by charity.
But I must stop. This letter is already too long.
Talking of religion, however, now in China is contagious
like cutting off queues and wearing tophats and smoking
jackets.
APPENDIX 69
APPENDIX
II
Law of the Gentleman
To the Editor of
The “PrKkine GAZETTE.”
Dear Sir,
I have read with great interest Mr. Alfred Sowerby’s
letter in answer to your challenge to your missionary
readers. Standing before the awful cataclysm—the letting
loose of elemental human passions in 17 million men armed
with the most refined scientific weapons for butchery and
devastation, one feels staggered. One asks oneself at this
moment: Is there then any hope for the world, for civilis-
ation, for humanity? Mr. Sowerby answers, Yes. He puts
the question ‘Is Christianity then a failure in Kurope?”’
and he says ‘The answer to that question is that the
Christian teachers are striving to make Christ’s word and
will dominant over the passions and unruly will of men
and the work is not vet finished.” “Do not,” he says,
“cast too premature a judgment but wait and you will see
the glory of the Lord.”
Now all this is very fine; but it is vague and
illusory. I think we want something more definite for
our hope. Indeed, if anything is needed to show, if not
the failure, at least the inefficacy of Christianity as a moral
force in Europe to-day, Mr. Sowerby’s letter with its
vague “wait and see the glory of the Lord,’ shows it.
What is more, I think I can show that it is the vagueness,
the inefficacy, the unsuitableness of Christianity as an
instrument of moral force in HKurope to-day, which has
brought about the present awful catastropey.
The teaching of Christ says ‘‘Love your enemies,
and whosoever shall strike thee on the right cheek, turn
to him the other also.” Now such divine meekness no
doubt is very sublime and beautiful. But is it practical,
and is it reasonable? And if it is not, what is the result?
The result is that hard-headed practical men in modern
70 APPENDIX
Europe now with their reason and intellect fully developed—
are not like men in their childhood as in Mediaeval Kurope,
who, as Matthew Arnold says, lived a life of the heart
and imagination; hard-headed practical men in Europe
to-day either pretend to take this teaching of Christ as a
guiding moral force or they throw it, and, with it, all
belief in moral force away and only believe in brute force.
Those who pretend to take this teaching of Christ with
their lips, become Jesuits; and those who throw it and
all beltef in moral force, become Militarists, Anarchists—
in fact, as I often have said, carnivorous animals. Now tt
is this Jesuitism—the organised Jesuitism called Politics
and Diplomacy with its cant about peace and civilisation—
and this Anarchism—the organised Anarchism called
Militarism, with its worship of the machine-gun, it is
this Jesuitism and anarchic Militarism which is at the
bottom, the cause of the present cataclysm is the world
and this Jesuitism and Anarchic Militarism is the direct
result of the inefficacy, the unsuitableness of Christianity
as a moral force in Europe to-day—unsnitable and
inefficacious because it is unreasonable and impracticable.
Confucius said, ““I know now why there is no real moral
life. The wise mistake moral law to be something higher
than it really is and the foolish do not know enough what
it really is. 1 know now why the moral law ts not under-
stood. The noble natures want to live too high and
ignorant natures do not live high enough.”
Thus we see that the ground for hope for humanity
at the present moment which Mr. Sowerby puts in
Chistianity with its vague ‘“‘Wait and see the glory of
the Lord” is illusory. But is there then no hope for
humanity? Yes, there is hope. But to me the true ground
for hopo for humanity at this present moment is not the “wait
and see the glory of the Jord of Christianity” the ground
for hope for humanity is the Law of the Gentleman of
Confucius. But what is this law of the gentleman ot
Confucius? The law of the gentleman of Confucius iu
plain Janguage means simply Play the game.
Now Christianity says ‘You must love your enemies;
you must not fight and go to war.” But Christianity with
this, as we have learned, only makes men become Jesuits
and this Jesuitism has produced this awful war. But
Confucius “If necessary, you must go to war: only you
must go to war like a gentleman and you must fight like
a gentleman,—in fact you must play the game.” To go
to war like a gentleman you must go to war for a right
APPENDIX ral
cause. But what is a right cause? I can not tell you that.
But I will here give on example of a going to war for a
wrong cause.
The Chief of a family in power in Confucius’ native
State was preparing to commence war against a feudatory
principality within that State. Two of his disciples who
were in the noble’s service came to see Confucius and
told him of it. Confucius said to one of these disciples,
“Ts that not your fault?” “No,” replied the disciple. “It
is my lord, our master who wants the war. We, who are
onlv his servants, do not desire it.”” Confucius then said—
“There you are wrong. When a tiger or a wild animal
escapes from its cage or when a tortoise, shell or a jade
gets broken in its case—who is to be blamed?”
“But now,” argued one or the disciples, “this
-principalitv is strongly fortified and is within easy reach
of our most important town. .If we do not reduce and
take it now, it will in future be a source of anxiety
and danger to our sons and grandsons.”
‘Sir,’ answered Confucius “a gentleman hates one
who makes excuses when he ought to say simply, ‘I
want it.’” |
To fight like a gentleman again means that you
must know that the true object of war is not to kill and
destroy, but disarm. Von Bunsen in his Memoirs says
“Moltke regarded the battle Koniggratz not as a victory
for him but as a defeat. He has only one notion of a battle
and that is to capture, not to kill.an enemy. A dead
enemy does not count with him. He shoots only to
capture and every man killed is a leaf taken from the
- victor’s chaplet.”
¢« In conclusion what I want to say in answer to Mr.
Sowerby’s letter is that my hope for civilisation and for
humanity at this present moment is not in the wait and
see the glory of the Lord of Christianity, but in the Law
of the gentleman of Confucius, in the Religion of Puay
THE GAME.
72 APPENDIX
APPENDIX
ITT.
Eine Bismarckfeler in Peking.
Am Donnerstag den 1. April, ist die hunderste
Wiederkehr von Bismarcks Geburtstage auch im Wagons
Lits Hotel in Peking von einem kleinen Kreise deutscher
Residenten in China festlich begangen worden. Unter den
Gasten war Herr Ku-Hung-Ming und, von dem
Gastgeber Herrn Dr. Arnold aufgefordert, einige Worte
tiber den Begriinder der deutschen Hinheit zu sprechen—
so, wie sich das Bild Bismarcks im Geiste eines auf der
Hohe universeller Geistesbildung stehenden Chinesen
darstellt—hielt Herr Ku Hung Ming, nachdem die Glaser
auf das Wohl von Kaiser und Vaterland geleert worden
waren, folgende eindrucksvolle Rede, die wir weiteren
Kreisen nicht vorenthalten diirfen:
“Meine Damen und Herren; Es ist mir schon eine
grosse Ehre, an der heutigen Festlichkeit teilnehmen zu
dirfen. Wie kann ich aber meine Anerkennung tiber die
ganz unerwartete Ehre aussprechen, die unser verehrter
Gastgeber mir soeben durch die Aufforderung erwiesen
hat, tiber den grossen deutschen Mann zu sprechen, dessen
Geburtstag wir heute feiern? Ich weiss, dass ein Dilet-
tanten Gelehrter wie ich ganz unfahig ist, Ihnen die
Charakter-Erhabenheit dieser grossen, welthistorischen
Persénlichkeit zu schildern, noch weniger, die ausschlag-
gebende Wirkung ihrer Lebenstatigkeit auf die Geschicke
von Huropa zu beschreiben. Aber, ich werde meine Be-
scheidenheit bei Seite legen und, dem Wunsche unseres
verehrten Gastgebers Folge leistend, iiber Bismarck ein paar
Worte sprechen. Ich tue dies, weil ich immer ein Be-
wunderer des grossen deutschen Reichskanzlers gewesen
bin, seit der Zeit, als ich noch ein junger Student in
Deutschland, ihn in Berlin auf der Strasse, von Angesicht
zu Angesicht gesehen habe. Wie der lateinische Dichter
sagt— Virgilium tantum vidi!
APPENDIX 73
Nun meine Damen und Herren, zuerst will ich Ihnen
sagen, dass Bismarck als der reine, echte, wahre Vertreter
des deutschen Geistes vor mir steht. Was ist aber der
deutsche Geist? Ich gebe in kurzer Zeit ein Buch heraus,
worin ich den Versuch mache, den chinesischen Geist zu
schildern. Heute, im Andenken an den grossen Mann,
werde ich den Versuch machen, Ihnen eine Schilderung
des deutschen Geistes zu geben, wie er mir vor-
schwebt. In der gréssten Rede, die Bismarck in seinem
ganzen Leben gehalten hat, in der gréssten Rede, seit
Martin Luther im Wormser Kaisersaale seine welthisto-
rische Rede hielt, welche die Vdélker’ Europas gehért
haben, in dieser Rede sagt Bismarck: “Wir Deutsche
firchten nichts als Gott”. Nun, wenn ich mich
bemiihe, einen passenden Ausdruck zu finden, um den
deutschen Geist richtig und treffend zu bezeichnen, kann
ich keinen besseren finden, als die méachtigen Worte
Bismarcks.
Also der deutsche Geist ist ein Geist, der Gott
fiirchtet, ein Geist der nichts fiirchtet als Gott.
Aber, wird man mich fragen, “was heisst Gott? was
heisst Gott ftirchten?* Bei den Hebraern des alten Tes-
taments hiess Gott Gerechtigkeit; Gott hiess das Recht
und Gott fiirchten, hiess, sich vor Ungerechtigkeit, vor
Unrecht fiirchten. Bei uns Chinesen aber heist Gott
Ordnung. Der Philisoph der Sung-Dynastie Chu Hsi sagt
“Tien chih h yeh* X& 6) 3B 4, Also wenn wir sagen, dass die
Deutschen ein Volk sind, welches Gott ftirchtet, so meinen
wir damit, dass die Deutschen ein Volk sind, das sich
vor aller Ungerechtigkeit und Unrecht, vor aller
Unordnung und Zuchtlosigkeit fiirchtet. Mit anderen
Worten, die Deutschen sind ein Volk, welchem alle
Unordnung und Zuchtlosigkeit verhasst sind. Das meinte
auch Bismarck mit den Worten ,die Deutschen firchten
nichts als Gott.“
Nun, weil das deutsche Volk diesen Geist hat, ist
es ihm meines Erachtens auch gelungen mehr fir die
Erhaltung der modernen Staatsordnung und Kultur von
Kuropa zu tun, als irgend ein anderes Volk von Europa.
Ich brauche nur zu erwahnen, dass es das deutsche Volk
war, das die Reformation in Europa eingefiihrt hat,
welche die reinen und kostbaren moralischen Higenschat-
ten des Christentums wieder herstellte. In neuester Zeit,
seit der franzésischen Revolution ist die Staatsordnung
und Kultur Europas oft von einem ins Masslose tibertrie-
74 APPEND1X
——
benen Radikalismus bedroht worden; und es war das deut-
sche Volk, welches die Staatsordnung und Kultur Euro-
pas vor dieser Gefahr gerettet hat. Mit anderen Worten,
ich bin der Meinung, dass das, was es heutzutage an
Zucht und Ordnung im Staats- und Familienleben Europas
gibt, die Vélker Europas dem deutschen Volke mehr als
irgend einem anderen zu verdanken haben.
Ich sage, dass das deutsche Volk mehr fiir das
Hervorbringen und die Erhalttumg von Zucht und Ordnung
in Europa getan hat, als irgend ein anderes Volk, weil
die Deutschen ein Volk sind, welches Gott fiirchtet; ein
Volk, welchem alles Unrecht, alle Zuchtlosigkeit und
Unordnung verhasst sind. Nun méchte man fragen, mit
welchen Mitteln hat das deutsche Volk alles das getan
und geleistet, worin es sich vor anderen ausgezeichnet
hat? Viel Menschen der modernen Zeit darunter auch
manche Deutsche, meinen, dass das deutsche Volk alles
dies getan und geleistet hat mit der Macht der deutschen
Waffen, mit dem deutschen Militarismus. Ich bin nicht
dieser Meinung. Ich bin vielmehr der Meinung, dass die
Mittel, womit das deutsche Volk alles das getan und
geleistet hat, nicht in der Macht des deutschen Militaris-
mus, nicht in der Macht der deutschen Waffengewalt
besteht. Ich bin sogar der Meinung, dass das deutsche
Volk soweit ich beurteilen kann, nicht ein kriegerisches,
nicht ein Krieg liebendes Volk ist. Das deutsche Volk
wollte ich sagen, lhebt den Krieg nicht an und fiir sich,
wie die Englander den ,Sport* lieben! Das deutsche
Volk geht in den Krieg nur, wenn es kein anderes Mittel
finden kann, um Zucht und Ordnung in der Welt her-
zustellen, weil es nichts fiirchtet als Gott.
Ich sage wieder, das die Mittel, womit das deutsche
Volk alles das getan und geleistet hat, nicht Militarismus,
nicht Waffengewalt, nicht Derbheit, nicht materielle
Macht sind. Welches sind denn aber dann die Mittel,
welche das deutsche Volk gebraucht hat, das zu erreichen,
was es geschaffen und geleistet hat? Ich sage die Mittel
sind: Deutsche KEchtheit, deutsches Pflichtgefihl,
deutsche T'reue und deutsche Tapferkeit. Das sind die
Mittel, womit das deutsche Volk alles das getan und
erreicht hat “was es fiir die Welt vollbracht hat:
Also, wenn wir den deutschen Geist richtig und
genau auffassen wollen, miissen wir nicht nur sagen, dass
die Deutschen ein Volk sind, welches nichts fiirchtet als
Gott, wir miissen auch hinzufiigen, dass die Deutschen
APPENDIX 75
ein Volk sind, welches geboren ist mit diesen vier reinen
echten deutschen WHigenschaften: HEchtheit, Pflichtgefiihl,
Treue und Tapferkeit. Das—sage ich—ist der deutsche
Geist. In diesem Sinne dann meine ich es dann auch,
wenn ich sage, dass der grosse Fiirst von Bismarck
der reine, echte, wahre Reprdsentant, das Symbol des
deutschen Geistes ist. Also, im Andenken an diesen
grossen, wahren, echten deutschen Mann, dessen Geburts-
tage wir jetzt feiern, wollen wir, meine Damen und Herren,
bet diesen vier Higenschaften des deutschen Geistes im
Gedanken verbleiben: deutsche Echtheit, deutsches Pflicht-
gefiihl, deutsche Treue und deutsche Tapferkeit. Hs
lebe wer sich tapfer halt! Meine JJamen und Herren, ich
bitte Sie im Andenken an den grossen Fiirsten von
Bismarck Ihre Glaser zu leeren‘.
Digitized by Google
Digitized by Google
Digitized by Google
‘il A MM
SITY OF
WA
543
851
iil
2/
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11